Re: [kde-community] Fwd: KDE Vision – towards “wholesame” solutions

[Lydia Pintscher]

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer
 wrote:
> sent to wrong mailinglist by mistake ...
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer" 
> To: kde-ev-members...@kde.org
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:19:00 +
> Subject: KDE Vision – towards “wholesame” solutions
> Hi all,
>
> many thanks to all people that have worked on the vision proposals and to
> everyone who contributed thoughts.
>
> I would like to chime in with an aspect that I feel is missing so far.
>
> This additional aspect is closely related to the motivation behind the
> product-focussed draft, but my conclusions are completely different.
>
> Already in KDE 2 and KDE 3 times, it impressed me that the software both
> offered a high degree of flexibility (through modularity and many
> configuration options) and a high degree of consistency (through clever and
> integrated solutions via the libraries). This tendency increased later during
> Plasma 4 and Plasma 5 times with a restructuring of the KDE releases. We now
> offer far more flexibility to users of the libraries (no monolithic “kdelibs”
> any more). We also changed the release structure to support the fact that both
> the libraries and the applications can be used independent of the desktop –
> while keeping the good integration into the desktop.
>
> The flexibility aligns well with “enables users to control their digital life”
> (from the value-based draft). The consistency is, I think, what motivates the
> product-focussed team.
>
> The strategy for safeguarding consistency must, however, work in the world of
> today. And the challenges of today are different from those 15 years ago.
> Back then, users were avoiding KDE+Linux because Microsoft Windows ran their
> favorite applications – and there simply were not enough options available on
> Linux. An additional problem was lock-in via incompatible file formats.
>
> Today, most people heavily use online services. Local software is still used,
> but integration with the online services is becoming more and more important.
> People still experience lack of freedom (lock-in due to network effects and
> restrictions on exporting/importing data) – even if the server runs Free
> Software internally.
>
> I conclude that an integrated solution today must tackle not only local
> software, but must also address the problems caused by the online services.
> This can be done via cooperations (OwnCloud, Kolab), but it other cases we
> will be better off if we allow our own developers to work on solutions.
> Forcing them to migrate to a different developing community will seriously
> harm us in our quest.
>
> For this reason, I am deeply concerned about the restrictive wording of the
> product-focussed draft – even if a similar motivation moves me.
>
> Regarding the value-based draft, my feedback is that it is very well-written.
> I truly like it. I am convinced, however, that we need to stress somewhere
> that the various KDE projects aim to integrate well with each other. This can
> be in the vision, or in a Mission statement, or in the Manifesto – but it is
> needed if we want to address the fear that KDE will loose focus.

I agree that integration within our projects is important. And I
believe it has suffered lately as the cohesion inside KDE became less.
My gut feeling is that this should go in the mission.

> I would suggest a sentence like the following:
> “KDE aims to offer complete, well-integrated solutions – while connecting
> different platforms, devices and online services.”

That sounds good to me.

> Before we finally agree on a vision, we need to clarify how it will relate to
> the Manifesto – and what will happen to KDE projects that do not fit to the
> vision.

They should live side-by-side. One defines who we are and the other
defines where we want to go.

> I consider it extremely important that we have clarity on the following
> questions, and would like to hear an “official” answer from both teams:
>
> 1. Will the Manifesto will stay the only official guideline for joining or
> leaving KDE? And will the vision have a purely advisory role?

IMHO we should not take the vision as an exclusionary tool but as a
reminder of where we want to go - an advisory role as you put it. It
should be there to remind us of the big picture and the change we want
to see in the world.

> 2. Or will we revise the text of the Manifesto in the same vote where we
> accept the vision?

As Kevin already brought up some time ago we can revise the manifesto.
I would suggest however to not do this in one go. I fear we're biting
off more than we can chew otherwise.

> If we change the Manifesto, then we also need to clarify:
>
> a) Will KDE projects be expelled if they do not fit the new Manifesto?
>
> b) Or will KDE projects be allowed to stay even if they do not meet the new
> Manifesto? Will other KDE projects then be forbidden from working on code that
> 

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

[Martin Graesslin]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 8:57:36 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Friday, February 12, 2016 08:04:10 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 10:06:33 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 10:06:57 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 10:08:19 PM Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 23:03:47 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> ...
> 
> > > so do I understand correctly that in general you would consider projects
> > > like a shell, a compiler and a text-mode editor as potential KDE
> > > projects
> > > ?
> > > 
> > > What's your opinion on one of the original goals of KDE to provide a set
> > > of
> > > software with a consistent look & feel and usability, stuff like common
> > > printing dialogs, file dialog, help systems, dialog layouts, etc, etc. ?
> > > 
> > > > > What about non-software projects like Project Gutenberg (free
> > > > > books),
> > > > > Jamendo  (free indie music), SubSurfWiki.org (free knowledge) ?
> > > > > Paraview (empowering students and scientists) ?
> > > > 
> > > > The draft states clear that we do Free software.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > Where do you draw the line ?
> > 
> > Why should there be a line?
> 
> people have been asking exactly that wrt. to the focused vision all the time
> continuously, so I think the team of the inclusive-draft can also answer a
> few questions.

As you might know (or not), I'm not a member of the inclusive team and have 
not collaborated on the draft. I'm asking questions to get an informed opinion 
and to see how it aligns with my opinion.

I asked identical questions to both proposals. On one I got a good answer and 
didn't ask further question, on the other I didn't. So I continued to ask 
questions as I still don't really understand what it will mean for me and the 
projects I'm working on.

Because of that I would highly appreciate if you would answer my questions and 
not hijack my thread to ask questions on another proposal.

Thank you!

Martin

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] finding a clear vision for KDE - first draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 11:45:53 AM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Riccardo Iaconelli  
wrote:
> > I honestly still find it strange that in this discussion we insist on
> > drawing a circle defining "what is/can be KDE" (which, once more, is not
> > what the vision would be supposed to mean) way smaller than what KDE
> > already is.
> 
> If KDE were doing great as is, we wouldn't have had this discussion
> today. I feel KDE lacks direction. But a broad vision proposal seems
> to just document the fact that KDE lacks direction and brings no
> value.

I can turn that 180 degree around and argue that we are currently too narrow 
minded to get new people in and are not doing great. Hey look all the awesome 
work with Plasma 5 and Wayland. We are doing desktop, desktop, desktop. Have a 
new mobile shell. And where are the devs? Where are the people following in 
that pretty clear direction?

So apparently having the direction seems not to work. People don't follow. So 
maybe we are too narrow? Lose the people who are actually out there and do hip 
stuff?

Cheers
Martin


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] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Monday 08 February 2016 17:07:26 Alexander Dymo wrote:
> > 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.

I think you misunderstand what (the purpose of) a vision is. Let's look 
at an example.

Oxfam's vision is "a just world without poverty". 
https://www.oxfam.org/en/our-purpose-and-beliefs

This goal is hardly reachable by a single organization like Oxfam.


> Most free software communities, including KDE, already work towards
> that goal.

Exactly. Just as many other NGOs are working towards the same goal as 
Oxfam.


> Defining it in writing as the goal of KDE adds neither value nor
> attractiveness to KDE as a project.

Well, that's debatable (and I disagree with it), but I hope you agree 
that not defining it in writing as the goal of KDE can only reduce KDE's 
attractiveness (because some potential contributors might fail to see 
our goal and decide to join another community).

I think your concern is that the vision does not function as 
differentiation from other free software communities. That's correct, 
but setting KDE apart from other free software communities is not the 
purpose of the vision. What differentiates us from other free software 
communities is not our goal, but the way we want to reach (resp. 
approach) this goal. And this way should be spelled out in the mission.


Regards,
Ingo


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

[kde-community] Distribution outreach program: Where do we go from here?

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

Hi everyone,
now with neon having been announced, and some members of some distributions 
fearing that their distribution might become a "second-class citizen" for KDE 
software due to the less direct communication with KDE, I think that it's more 
important than ever to publicly reach out to all distros shipping our 
software.

This thread has seen some skepticism about some parts of my original idea, but 
mostly great suggestions for how to proceed.

I've tried to analyze the brainstorming results and identify what most people 
contributing to the discussion seemed to agree on. 
Here is how I'd suggest to proceed:

- Form a team to organize the Distribution Outreach Program and act as point 
of contact for the distributions

- Define what would be the main communication channel (should we just use 
kde-distro-packagers or do we need a new mailing list, forum or whatever?)

- Publicly announce (on all channels where we might reach distributions) the 
program, including how to reach us

- Collect from our maintainers what a distribution should to provide in order 
to make their software work best on it (where do we reach everyone?) and 
publish that (ideally on our wiki once that is editable again)

This is all I'd do for now. I'd suggest to first see how much simply increasing 
communication and publishing our requirements will take us. We can decide 
whether we want/need badges or scripted testing later.

Does that make sense to you guys?
And most importantly: Who'd be up for joining the program team?

Cheers,
Thomas
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Distribution outreach program: Where do we go from here?

[Bhushan Shah]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Thomas Pfeiffer
 wrote:
> Does that make sense to you guys?
> And most importantly: Who'd be up for joining the program team?

Count me in. :-)

-- 
Bhushan Shah

http://bhush9.github.io
IRC Nick : bshah on Freenode
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community