On Sunday, January 08, 2017 12:02:06 AM Valorie Zimmerman wrote: > However, the sysadmins would like the KDE community support for this, > since it could be seen as a "slippery slope." In addition, Ben > Cooksley said, "we'll need to come up with some guidelines surrounding > what distributions can ask us for, given the Manifesto / KDE Project > rules.
Hi Valorie, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here. For me, it seems like you're drawing a Venn diagram, with a circle of "distro people" on one side, and a circle of "KDE infrastructure", and saying that an overlap between the two is problematic. I'm not sure why that's a problem, nor even why the two circles are expected to be distinct. Consider the KDE-FreeBSD packagers. That's not one of the "big three", but it is a distro in a non-Linuxy sense of the word. Heck, there's even *two* trademarks in the name there! So this group of people self-identifies as "the KDE-FreeBSD community of packagers". The people within that community vary from almost-pure-FreeBSD-folks (e.g. mat_) to almost-pure-KDE-folks (e.g. me). It's still a single group with a particular purpose, namely to bring KDE software to the OS (platform, distro, whatever). It seems to be natural to use whatever infrastructure is most convenient or most apposite. We (KDE-FreeBSD) have a *.kde.org subdomain for posting news and information, keep some *base.kde.org wiki pages with information for KDE users and people wanting to contribute, and use KDE phab, git, etc. when upstreaming patches. We *also* use FreeBSD phab for dealing with downstream workflow, the wiki there for progress reports, the bug tracker there, etc. As for general collaborative things, whichever pastebin is handy gets used; whichever notes-taking app is around gets used. I don't think we spend -- or want to spend -- a lot of time thinking about which one gets used. So for me, it seems like either a non-problem (because KDE-FreeBSD is pretty small) or there's something not expressed here that lies behind your question. [ade]