Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

[Kevin Ottens]

Hello,

On Thursday, 6 July 2017 21:27:45 CEST Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On 2017 M07 6, Thu 07:29:39 CEST Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 23:12:38 CEST Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> ...
> 
> > > Except that I don't think "Open Data" should really be THE focus of KDE
> > > (but I guess you just used that as a random example ?), I fully agree.
> > 
> > It wasn't totally random, I picked one I knew you wouldn't like. :-)
> 
> It's not that I don't like the idea of "Open Data", it's just that IMO KDE
> is not the right community for it, that should be Wikimedia or some
> scientific computing groups. :-)

Sure, I was a bit blunt with "don't like", I meant you wouldn't be thrilled if 
KDE chose that path. :-)

> > And part of my point is that if something like "Open Data" ended up being
> > picked, please don't argue it to death to prevent it. We will quickly know
> > where everyone stands, but if that's a divisive discussion each we'll keep
> > driving people away and we'll win nothing.
> > 
> > In fact, the selection process still needs to be found. As I mentioned
> > earlier on we can't do it somewhat unilaterally like organizations like
> > Mozilla can, we need to come up with a way to build up that consensus.
> 
> +1
> 
> How about collecting ideas for that ?
> We have already 5.

5? I missed a couple I guess. I spotted only "privacy" and "freedom" so far.

Note I'd be personally inclined to do an early filtering of them to avoid 
things which are way too generic and impossible to action. The reasoning being 
that if you line them up against more precise things they'd be picked up every 
time since they'd be more easily fitting larger groups... but they'd be 
counter-productive at building a direction.

One simple criterion for that could be "no single term proposal" because then 
you're just showing up a concept and that single word can be ambiguous enough 
to be misunderstood too. See for instance how I didn't quite complain about 
"privacy" but I did for "freedom", it's just than in one case I see a clear 
direction and actions we can take and not in the other one. Can be very 
different for someone else!

After all we're talking about selecting something like a 5 years strategy, I 
think it deserve more than just a word.

> > > I fully support the idea to figure out some one or a few "main focus"
> > > areas and push them. I never meant, never even hinted to exclude
> > > projects which are not in this main focus. But OTOH I think we don't
> > > need to attract them. Also my impression is that this argument is
> > > currently used the other way round: we are so diverse, e.g. Wiki2Lean,
> > > so it is impossible to define what our main focus is (implying that
> > > everything which is not mentioned in such a statement would have to be
> > > excluded).
> > 
> > Yes, the fact that we want to write everything as globally encompassing
> > prevent us from getting a direction because of our diversity. That's why I
> > think having something not necessarily covering every project would help
> > as long as we all accept 1) to be supportive of it even if it's not to our
> > liking and 2) it's not used as a mean to exclude efforts which don't fall
> > into it.
> > 
> > Both are important, otherwise I don't see it working.
> 
> +1

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.

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

[Kevin Ottens]

Hello,

On Thursday, 6 July 2017 21:27:52 CEST Clemens Toennies wrote:
> Am 06.07.2017 um 07:30 schrieb Kevin Ottens:
> > Hello, > > On Thursday, 6 July 2017 01:19:00 CEST Clemens Toennies wrote:
> > >>
> More like "Practical Freedom"? >> The KDE community imo shouldnt be
> about "technicalities", thats up to >> how each project tries to
> contribute or work towards that ultimate goal >> that is freedom. >>
> Wiki2Learn for example really doesnt fit privacy, but can help with >>
> Freedom on various levels. > > Sorry, that's still way too broad and
> tries to be all encompassing. My point > in this thread is we shouldn't
> do that to give a direction.
> 
> I like to disagree here.
> My thinking was to define an over-arching goal as  common vision/mission
> and then focus on particular sub-goal for a limited timeframe that works
> towards that goal for some, but maybe not all projects, like e.g. privacy.

Well, this is pretty much what I'm proposing IMO. The Vision and Mission 
statements as we have them now are over-arching, and setting a strategic 
direction ofr a few years is a sub-goal for a limited timeframe which doesn't 
necessarily apply to all projects.

> But out of curiousity, what direction you think the KDE Community as a
> whole should take?

Honestly I don't have a real opinion on that... as long as there *is* a 
direction I'm happy.

I admit I like the privacy one though.

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.

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

[Clemens Toennies]

Am 06.07.2017 um 10:09 schrieb Sebastian Kügler:
> On donderdag 6 juli 2017 01:45:59 CEST Clemens Toennies wrote:
>> Am 05.07.2017 um 22:58 schrieb Alexander Neundorf:
>>> On 2017 M07 5, Wed 15:05:26 CEST Clemens Toennies wrote:
 On Jul 5, 2017 13:14, "Sebastian Kügler"  wrote:
 How about Freedom?
>>> The "KDE - Digital Freedom" is one of my favourite T-shirts...
>>> Still, there exists already a software organizatio which has freedom as
>>> its
>>> main goal: GNU.
>> Gnome already builds a "free" desktop, so why should we?
>> Good thing they dont have a monopoly on it 
>>
>> Imo we deliver quite advanced free software that helps people experience
>> freedom like e.g. Krita, Kdenlive and many others that are more
>> practical than comparable organizations like GNU have to offer.
>> So we as KDE should not need to cut down ourself to strive for a smaller
>> subset of "Freedom" (aka Privacy or Android) in our mission (or vision)
>> only because some other organization claims to have the same goal.
> Krita is an excellent example though to demonstrate how well specialization 
> works -- instead of trying to do a photoshop clone, Krita found its niche in 
> natural painting and has quickly become the best in class in that field (as 
> far as I know).
>
> Having done promotion in KDE for a really long time, I tend to agree that 
> Freedom is too broad and too abstract for many people to understand and be 
> really compelling. We tried to make it less abstract and promote freedom at 
> our core much more (the t-shirt Alex mentioned is one of the assets I made 
> exactly with that purpose, so is the slogan "Be free" that you mentioned, but 
> it hasn't given us the focus we need. From a marketing point of view, KDE 
> needs to find a niche from where it can really shine and break into new new 
> markets, be the best-in-class. 
>
> I do believe that privacy is a very suitable niche for KDE, it's hugely 
> important nowadays, it's a lot easier to communicate the need for it than the 
> very abstract concept of Freedom, and, most importantly, it really is one of 
> the things that we, diverse as we are, all agree on.

Just that privacy doesnt fit W2L at all.

Greetings, Clemens.

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

[Alexander Neundorf]

On 2017 M07 6, Thu 07:29:39 CEST Kevin Ottens wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 23:12:38 CEST Alexander Neundorf wrote:
...
> > Except that I don't think "Open Data" should really be THE focus of KDE
> > (but I guess you just used that as a random example ?), I fully agree.
> 
> It wasn't totally random, I picked one I knew you wouldn't like. :-)

It's not that I don't like the idea of "Open Data", it's just that IMO KDE is 
not the right community for it, that should be Wikimedia or some scientific 
computing groups. :-)

> And part of my point is that if something like "Open Data" ended up being
> picked, please don't argue it to death to prevent it. We will quickly know
> where everyone stands, but if that's a divisive discussion each we'll keep
> driving people away and we'll win nothing.
> 
> In fact, the selection process still needs to be found. As I mentioned
> earlier on we can't do it somewhat unilaterally like organizations like
> Mozilla can, we need to come up with a way to build up that consensus.

+1

How about collecting ideas for that ?
We have already 5.
 
> > I fully support the idea to figure out some one or a few "main focus"
> > areas
> > and push them.
> > I never meant, never even hinted to exclude projects which are not in this
> > main focus. But OTOH I think we don't need to attract them. Also my
> > impression is that this argument is currently used the other way round: we
> > are so diverse, e.g. Wiki2Lean, so it is impossible to define what our
> > main
> > focus is (implying that everything which is not mentioned in such a
> > statement would have to be excluded).
> 
> Yes, the fact that we want to write everything as globally encompassing
> prevent us from getting a direction because of our diversity. That's why I
> think having something not necessarily covering every project would help as
> long as we all accept 1) to be supportive of it even if it's not to our
> liking and 2) it's not used as a mean to exclude efforts which don't fall
> into it.
> 
> Both are important, otherwise I don't see it working.

+1
 
Alex

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

[Clemens Toennies]

Am 06.07.2017 um 07:30 schrieb Kevin Ottens:
> Hello, > > On Thursday, 6 July 2017 01:19:00 CEST Clemens Toennies wrote: >>
More like "Practical Freedom"? >> The KDE community imo shouldnt be
about "technicalities", thats up to >> how each project tries to
contribute or work towards that ultimate goal >> that is freedom. >>
Wiki2Learn for example really doesnt fit privacy, but can help with >>
Freedom on various levels. > > Sorry, that's still way too broad and
tries to be all encompassing. My point > in this thread is we shouldn't
do that to give a direction.

I like to disagree here.
My thinking was to define an over-arching goal as  common vision/mission
and then focus on particular sub-goal for a limited timeframe that works
towards that goal for some, but maybe not all projects, like e.g. privacy.
But out of curiousity, what direction you think the KDE Community as a
whole should take?

Greetings, Clemens.

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

[Luca Beltrame]

Il giorno Thu, 06 Jul 2017 07:44:49 +0200
Martin Gräßlin  ha scritto:

> could we get a transcript of the discussion on IRC?

It was on the Italian KDE dev channel, so even if I had a
transcript, it would be hardly useful. ;) It was just a couple of
points, saying that we need more automated checks, and that
unfortunately this isn't sexy so it's still a lacking area.


pgpHgyKiwdhdl.pgp
Description: Firma digitale OpenPGP