Oooo, Steve! Thank you for capping off an excellent discussion. On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Kelly <steve...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ingo Klöcker wrote: > >> I had very similar thoughts when I read the above. I immediately thought >> "No, I don't want only all users of _our_ technology to enjoys freedom, >> etc." I want all 7+ billion human beings living on this planet >> (including the ISS) to enjoy freedom, privacy and control. > > Thanks Ingo for your contributions in these threads! You've really helped > me to realize what this discussion is all about. In particular, in > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.kde.devel.community/2422 > > you made the point that a vision statement can be something which is not > achievable by that organization alone (or even at all!). > > It also doesn't make a reference to the organization itself (that would be > a self reference). > >> "a world in which everyone has freedom, privacy and control over their >> digital life" > > I think the form > > "A world in which everyone has <foo> their digital life" > > is fantastic! > > The exact expression and placement of commas in the <foo> part needs to be > considered to make it as universally understandable as possible and easily > remembered as possible. > > Things I like about this: > > 1) It is 'non-exclusive' > > It doesn't mention KDE. It doesn't have a 'subject' at all. > > It's 'the vision from nowhere', so it is easy to attach to without feeling > like subscribing to some organizations entire agenda. > > It doesn't even have an action verb like 'working towards' or such, so it's > 'something to keep in mind as a guiding principle' that you can just > meditate on instead of 'doing something about this problem in the world'. > > Because there is no 'action', there is no method prescribed to achieve the > vision. That's good, because the method is the realm of the mission. > > 'KDE envisions' is redundant because it 'KDE envisions KDEs vision'. > > Notice that almost none of the examples at > > https://topnonprofits.com/examples/vision-statements/ > > use a self reference. > > A vision isn't a place to put a brand. > > 2) It is easily shared > > A vision seems to be something that could be mistakenly for the vision of > any number of organizations. Without checking the list, you can read these > and guess any of about 5 organizations that could have it as their vision: > > * A just world without poverty > * To become a world leader at connecting people to wildlife and > conservation. > * A world where everyone has a decent place to live. > * Equality for everyone > * For every child, life in all its fullness; Our prayer for every heart, > the will to make it so > > 3) It has a very-inclusive object: 'everyone' > > Compare with: > > * ... *everyone* has a decent place to live ... > * ... connecting *people* to wildlife ... > * Equality for *everyone* ... > * For *every child* ... > * *all animals* > * *future generations* > * *Every person* has the opportunity ... > * *every child* attains the right ... > * *all people* – even in the most remote areas of the globe ... > > The counter examples are for organizations which are inherently exclusive, > describing the subset of 'all' people who they address: > > * A hunger-free America > * people with intellectual disabilities > * eligible youth in America > * veterans > > KDE is not inherently exclusive, so those don't seem to be good examples > for > KDE to follow. > > 4) It relates to a universally relateable aspect of being a human in 2016 > > That is, 'digital life'. > > Compare with other aspects of 'being a human' that appear in the list: > > * poverty - even if you don't know it, you can't avoid it, and you know > what you do to keep yourself out of it. > * hunger-free > * Equality > * a decent place to live > * the power of a wish > * life in all its fullness > * the opportunity to achieve his/her fullest potential > * the power to create opportunity for themselves and others > > 5) It has a recognizable, idealistic, completely unachievable goal > > Something along the lines of > > * control - over digitally 'social' presence, absence etc > * control - over availability of digital services > * privacy - choosing what to share, knowingly > * freedom - to be forgotten > * freedom - to have, share, learn, modify, teach > > Though I'm not sure 'freedom' should be in the vision - I think that's the > means/prerequisite to achieve personal control and choice of privacy. > Having > freedom in the vision makes it overlap with the 4 freedoms. > > But what are the 4 freedoms attempting to achieve? Something like the > answer > to that could be the vision. > > Compare: > > * A just world without poverty > * everyone has a decent place to live > * a sustainable world > * save a planet > * survival, protection, development and participation > > 7) It is hard to disagree with the content of it > > Who would counter it with a claim that everyone shouldn't have > control/privacy/freedom by default? > > 8) It is vague and non-specific > > This is good! If it's specific it's divisive! > > 9) It is completely un-dangerous > > It won't help us make difficult decisions. It's not useful in that sense at > all. > > And that's a good thing! That would be like a CEO micromanaging an some > workers' tools. The vision is 'several steps away from' any kind of day-to- > day issues or organizational issues we face. The 'direct report' may be a > mission, or something derived from that. > > No one will win an argument by saying something like: > > * Our vision says '... digital life', so project X should be in KDE! > * Our vision says '...', so we need to put resources into Y! > * Our vision says '...', so we need to get rid of Z to leave resource for W! > > Because the vision doesn't prescribe a method by which it can be achieved > at > all. From the point of view of the ideal universe, any things you try to do > to achieve it is arbitrary, so there are no arguments in favor of doing the > things embedded in the vision. > > I don't think a vision needs 'usefulness'. It only needs to be a trigger > for > inspiration. That's what motivates sharing it. > > 10) It is inspirational > > The vision only asks you to want the thing it describes, it doesn't ask you > to do anything for it. When you want it, at that point you figure out > something it inspires you to do or a change you make. > > Compare: > > * Equality for everyone? WANT! > * Ok, so what am I going to do about it? > * Erm, let's see what I can do for the UN > * Note: Example chosen because 'Equality for everyone' is not the UN vision > > No one is going to go (logically at least) from an unbranded piece of paper > with the words "A world in which everyone has <foo> their digital life" > written on it to KDE. It works the other way around: someone new arrives at > a conference and asks what KDE is about and you share the vision. > > 11) It is comparable to the other concise visions > > > > This is just my understanding that I've encountered as a result of reading > what Ingo wrote and comparing with the website list. I know others have > different understandings, but I wanted to be specific about what insights > I'm thanking Ingo for! I like the direction. > > I hope a vision can be found which is agreeable enough that we can bring it > to conclusion and get thinking about the mission instead! > > Thanks, > > Steve.
After reading all of the above, which put into words my inchaote thoughts, I would like to offer the following version: KDE: control your digital life Freedom, technology, software, privacy, all of that is IN there. Valorie _______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community