Re: [kde-community] Discussion: KDE Manifesto, established practices
Hey guys, sorry for not replying sooner, I just got back from some travel. I completely agree that the old language was essentially meaningless when it comes to enforcement but I thought that this was more or less on purpose: Lax language allows us to convey the idea (do, how we do) without needing to specify the details and - again - gives us much more freedom to act. But apparently we want to make this clause carry actual weight. That's alright but then the updated language is imho also far from ideal: All three of your use cases fail completely without a clear definition of what constitutes an established practice. I know we want to keep the manifesto short and to the point but if we want the language to be precise enough to invoke in case of dispute, it needs to actually be *precise*. So, to sum up, my position is to either a.) keep the language as is: Legally meaningless, just to convey intention b.) make it precise enough to clear up any confusion. only then it becomes actually enforceable. This would imho include a list of the established practices we're referring to - with links to their full policies. Best regards, Peter ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Discussion: KDE Manifesto, established practices
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 18:38:24 Myriam Schweingruber wrote: Sorry to top-post, but this is getting wordier and wordier and I have long lost trace of what is said. Could we have a tl::dr wrap-up, please? my position: * “special considerations” is ill defined and can be applied to nearly anything * this defeats the point of having such language in the manifesto * abuse of loosely defined phrasing has happened in the past within KDE * exceptions to established practices exist and belong in the documentation for that practice example: coding style is noted as variable across KDE in the commit policy * the new wording is ‘relaxed’ enough to not come across as overly strict, even without exceptions; KISS -- Aaron J. Seigo ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Discussion: KDE Manifesto, established practices
On Tuesday 12 November 2013 21:45:40 Peter Grasch wrote: On 11/12/2013 06:35 PM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: which established practices did Necessitas not follow? I would argue that Use kdelibs would be an established practice in KDE but I recognize that there was/is some disagreement as to what practices this clause is referring to (even in the initial discussion of the Manifesto). I think your worry on that point come from what you see in established practices. To me use kdelibs is not practice it's a technical choice. :-) The way we do our development, grouping things in extragear, going through kdereview, etc. those are established practices. Maybe our disagreement on the wording is down to different interpretations of established practices? Did I maybe miss the list of practices this applies to? I don't think we maintain such a list, I'm not even sure it'd be desirable. It's scattered in community.kde.org as we document our way of working in a given area... and that's probably best this way. Does it answer some of your concerns? It's the last open issue from our rounds of discussions AFAICT. I'd like us to move forward on it. Regards. -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Discussion: KDE Manifesto, established practices
On 11/12/2013 06:35 PM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: 1) where exceptions are appropriate, they are encoded into the individual descriptions of “established practices”. we have a commit policy, for instance; it probably has exceptions to its guidelines. those exceptions belong in the commit policy, not the Manifesto. since those exceptions are in the commit policy, they are part of the established practice of the commit policy, and therefore the Manifesto does not need to add yet another “escape clause” on top of that. Agreed. 2) the point of enumerating the attributes of a “KDE Project” is to ensure a certain continuity amongst those projects. if we want to be permissive and let anything go, we don’t need a Manifesto, a Code of Conduct or even a commit policy. as we agree those things have utility, we need to be willing to accept that there may be projects that will not demonstrate the necessary attributes. Agreed. 3) if there are undefined escape clauses in the “what it means to be a KDE Project”, even if we don’t intend them to be used in that manner, people will use them to justify behavior that we explicitly do not want. they will point to the Manifesto and say “well, you guys said that if there are special considerations .. and we have them”. the “special considerations” clause is a trap dug for ourselves that will be used by the very sorts of projects the Manifesto ought to help us identify as “not belonging to KDE Disagreed. Actually, any person that takes whatever we may write so literally as you are portraying in your email will always get it wrong. Something as faceted as a full software development cycle just can't be adressed in detail in half a sentence. I could just as easily argue that the new language would have caused e.g., the Necessitas people to go ah, we can't conform to the established practices so we obviously can't be a KDE project. This, actually, nicely brings me to my point: Because the meaning behind that point is complex, we should err on the side of caution on making it too restrictive. The ambiguity in the original language is imho an *advantage* because it is indicative of the actual practice: special considerations may arise that are to be treated on a case-by-case basis. No, we can't give a list of valid considerations but that doesn't mean there won't be any that warrant exceptions. We've done it in the past and will do it again. What is important is that there is *communication* - something that a strict wording imho hinders. It was my understanding that attracting such diverse project to the KDE umbrella was recognized as being in our best interest and something we want to encourage. we want to attract a diversity of projects, but within principles that have gained consensus over the years and become part of KDE’s culture. we do exclude projects even now: we could attract more projects by dropping the Free software requirement. You misunderstood me here. I'm not saying we change our policies and become more open toward potential special considerations in the future. I'm saying that keeping the clause as we have it now better indicates our actual practice. Saying that there can be special considerations doesn't lock us into granting exceptions all the time. This would be akin to saying killing people is legal because it is in certain specific circumstances (self-defence, for example). being overly permissive leads to there being no identification of “KDE” and it is exactly that community and culture that leads to a group of diverse projects being able to work together. Agreed. I don't think that the clause as it stands today can really be seen as a wildcard for projects to do what they want. (And, afaik, this also then what are the boundaries of “special conditions? If we could anticipate them, they wouldn't be all that special. So, to answer your question: to be determined on a case by case basis. hasn't been a problem as of yet but please correct me if I'm wrong here.) you don’t buy insurance after your house burns down. the Manifesto has not been around long enough for it to become an issue, but it is plain to see how it can and will be. Obviously we should be proactive but I want to point out that the fear of people exploiting the Manifesto is not just unfounded in theory (as it's not a binding document) but - so far - also in practice. What these few simple words do signal, however, is that while we do have rules, KDE is a community of human beings that can be talked to instead of a faceless set of laws. The project stays true to established practices common to similar KDE projects” how can you claim that that is a faceless set of laws? it doesn’t even use the word “policy” but rather practice. Okay, this may have been harsh language on my side. This is not what I meant. I apologize. Let me try to explain what I mean: Suppose there is a project team that considers moving to
Re: [kde-community] Discussion: KDE Manifesto, established practices
On Tuesday 12 November 2013 18:38:24 Myriam Schweingruber wrote: Hi all, Sorry to top-post, but this is getting wordier and wordier and I have long lost trace of what is said. Could we have a tl::dr wrap-up, please? On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Aaron J. Seigo ase...@kde.org wrote: On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 21:45:40 Peter Grasch wrote: On 11/12/2013 06:35 PM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: [BIG SNIP] Thank you in advance, Myriam I have to admit I'm loosing track of that particular sub-thread indeed... Cheers. -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Discussion: KDE Manifesto, established practices
On Sunday 10 November 2013 16:47:43 Carl Symons wrote: The project stays true to established practices common to similar KDE projects. Could be a solution indeed. Anybody against it apart from Peter?[*] Cheers. [*] @Peter, I read your points. I understand the worries and I think they got properly answered by Aaron. If you got more to bring on the table I'll read it in the sub-thread don't worry I'm monitoring it. ;-) -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Discussion: KDE Manifesto, established practices
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/11/2013 06:35 PM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: On Monday, November 11, 2013 12:16:38 Peter Grasch wrote: These people can not expected to know that deviating in case of special considerations is standard practice within the KDE community. not at all. the key phrase is established practices”. so, the established practice of, say, respecting string freezes. yes, there are exceptions to that rule, but those exceptions are codified *in the establishment of the practice of release engineering*. if a given practice establishes *for itself* exceptions, then those exceptions are part of the “established practices”. IIRC, this clause was put there - among other reasons, some of which you address - to justify e.g. Necessitas and even Owncloud not following a whole range of our established practices. It was my understanding that attracting such diverse project to the KDE umbrella was recognized as being in our best interest and something we want to encourage. I don't think that the clause as it stands today can really be seen as a wildcard for projects to do what they want. (And, afaik, this also hasn't been a problem as of yet but please correct me if I'm wrong here.) What these few simple words do signal, however, is that while we do have rules, KDE is a community of human beings that can be talked to instead of a faceless set of laws. To me, this is a really important point and also something that is often surprising to people who haven't interacted with FOSS communities before. But maybe this is just me misinterpreting it, so let's stay with a practical example: How would Necessitas be justified under the KDE umbrella given the updated language? Best regards, Peter -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSgYntAAoJEFCPmK2EvjqqfrkQALuNK60HiweaM+jLux5CrdGg mKiY4A00dtyimatW31vn99QEtEdecXh8yFg6zrvRxgOu86XU2Zb9FmPFWGzHBCRG GaTs0OYeDRX9//6H6y3/D5cJryMRGyHgwer8FVKLHJPYtxEmVS8osc2t8kuNnUil cilpmqiCC6uDHHUoMldP86UY6MEer0uzc/k+vsRFf0cnzsgBw9ogj6V/rYdfuLfE emp9nqCxxu4DNNq9TfCJS0BaxHiafu3RblFCSDfFyLGk4bA3xXlaAJ9K7opJnMXl 7Cu6WBo29xCxV1yLb7MLxl/ID+FRe8tqgzyJXnnqAZ6ayfMmxbVlKSltMG42rrrG KujSxBSjajsiVnEd14U/Rpt9yqvhe4vbAy1D7xecUQ6owjw3Hxj6UEMBt5/eA6HW 2yXkgkSD0ahuGD9OWMR2C0B/T0ST+a+fQAnN0f7fYSrfFm+BOR+4eT4b+boanmmC 9qxO3rzgxQC9VVgKK/yWRFhUGXnnroa077iYsND5qCLPVg4SwMAcOJqQJBH4pYzE IgjBR7BY4U+gPbL6MLQQLj0wBlKwdkNK6Z19wzTKLjKGBZA47fVWf1E2+df7N2rt q7Umgd4f5ZC0+KoCypN4CYZErl7dLxKp1o8w8cNXb8PiLzQMWAMPin0orejPx8IW C4NEwZEp8Fq83pZF0GKG =XPZh -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
[kde-community] Discussion: KDE Manifesto, established practices
Hello, In the principles, section of the manifesto we have the following point: The project stays true to established practices common to similar KDE projects unless special considerations force it to deviate. I guess after lengthy discussions you end up with points like that which says... well... nothing really. Do it like anybody else except if you feel you can't. :-) So, I'm looking for an alternate wording. I think that either we find a way to make it stronger or we should just drop it. It's meaningless as it is. Regards. -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
