On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer <o...@amen-online.de> wrote: > sent to wrong mailinglist by mistake ... > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer" <o...@amen-online.de> > To: kde-ev-members...@kde.org > Cc: > Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:19:00 +0000 > 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 > goes beyond the focus of the Manifesto (even if the developers consider it > necessary for the future of the project)? > > c) Or can existing KDE projects can do whatever they wish – while new projects > are forbidden to join unless they meet the focus of the Manifesto exactly > (even if they integrate well with other, existing KDE projects having a > different focus)? > > > The reason I insist on these questions is that I do not want to end up in a > situation where we agree on a vision – and then realise that people interpret > the social consequences differently (1 or 2a or 2b or 2c). > > Also , it is important to me to know whether accepting a product-focussed > vision precludes “wholesale” solutions that take the necessities of online > services into account. Cheers Lydia -- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher KDE e.V. Board of Directors / KDE Community Working Group http://kde.org - http://open-advice.org _______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community