Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

Hi, thank you for your replies. Unfortunately I don't find these satisfying answers. I asked for explanations why not. This is completely missing. A we should do GUI is no explanation on why we should not be a leader in the next big thing. So please explain in more detail, why you think KDE

Re: [kde-community] Should we allow non-KDE projects to participate in GSoC under KDE?

On Monday, February 8, 2016 2:37:26 AM CET Valorie Zimmerman wrote: > As part of the Student Programs admin team, to me it is pretty clear: > we should act as the umbrella for friendly teams who pull their own > weight, whether or not they intend to become KDE projects officially > in the near

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

On Thursday, February 04, 2016 08:49:55 PM Alexander Neundorf wrote: > Still we don't see linear algebra libraries or build tools as the main goal > KDE is trying to achieve (...says the guy who maintained the KDE > buildsystem for more than 7 years). Next counter-example: The Eigen library, a

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - first draft for discussion

On Friday, February 05, 2016 05:00:28 PM Ingo Klöcker wrote: > On Wednesday 03 February 2016 10:10:27 Lydia Pintscher wrote: > > The first draft reads as follows: > > "KDE, through the creation of Free software, > > "through the creation of Free software" sounds like (part of) a mission >

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - first draft for discussion

On Friday, February 5, 2016 10:03:27 AM CET Lydia Pintscher wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 10:10:27 AM CET Lydia Pintscher wrote: > >> The first draft reads as follows: > >> "KDE, through the creation of Free

Re: [kde-community] Should we allow non-KDE projects to participate in GSoC under KDE?

I think it's very much in KDE's interest to allow projects which are not part of KDE but which KDE depends upon to be part of it. This should be done on the judgement of the KDE GSoC admins based on value to KDE and how well the other projects works with us. In many cases it's the same people

Re: [kde-community] Should we allow non-KDE projects to participate in GSoC under KDE?

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Martin Klapetek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Ingo Klöcker wrote: >> >> On Wednesday 03 February 2016 14:58:54 Martin Klapetek wrote: >> > So I'd like to have this cleared - does the community agree to >> >

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 2:00:43 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Saturday, February 06, 2016 19:39:35 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: > > On Samstag, 6. Februar 2016 16:47:31 CET Ingo Klöcker wrote: > > > Yes. I think the vision statement needs to be complemented by a mission > > > statement. But

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 9:16:41 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote: > Hi, > > On Thursday, February 04, 2016 07:53:06 Martin Graesslin wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:44:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote: > > > I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not > > >

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

On Monday, February 8, 2016 5:09:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote: > In that mail I omitted the "GUI" somewhere near the "free software". > We do agree with Alex N about that. Just follow the last three replies to that thread and try to understand why I think your answers are contradicting and

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

On Monday, February 8, 2016 1:02:47 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote: > > why you think KDE should not be a leader in future technologies. > > What are these future technologies? > I think you're just not convinced this is

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

On Monday, February 08, 2016 10:56:01 Sebastian Kügler wrote: > On Thursday, February 04, 2016 08:49:55 PM Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > Still we don't see linear algebra libraries or build tools as the main > > goal > > KDE is trying to achieve (...says the guy who maintained the KDE > >

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote: > why you think KDE should not be a leader in future technologies. What are these future technologies? Our group thinks that personal computing devices are a big thing. Apps working on these devices are going to be even

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

On Monday, February 08, 2016 13:02:47 Alexander Dymo wrote: > More devices will arrive, each requiring a shell/launcher and the > apps. I think devices without a graphical user interface, driven by speech or sensors will be more and more common. The point really is, are we sure that important

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

On Monday, February 08, 2016 13:12:51 Alexander Dymo wrote: > The "inclusive" vision naturally doesn't have this problem because its > attitude is: "let's have everybody on board". You're misunderstanding this draft then, let me clarify: We define the goal for KDE not in technical terms, but in

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

In that mail I omitted the "GUI" somewhere near the "free software". We do agree with Alex N about that. On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Riccardo Iaconelli wrote: > On Monday, February 08, 2016 01:12:51 PM Alexander Dymo wrote: >> We pointed many times that the focus is on free

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

> We define the goal for KDE not in technical terms, but in terms of Freedom, > user control and privacy. I understand this part clearly. I just say that this goal is too broadly defined, and, therefore hardly reachable by a single organization like KDE. Most free software communities, including