[kde-community] Fwd: KDE Vision – towards “wholesame” solutions
sent to wrong mailinglist by mistake ...--- Begin Message --- 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 would suggest a sentence like the following: “KDE aims to offer complete, well-integrated solutions – while connecting different platforms, devices and online services.” 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. 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? 2. Or will we revise the text of the Manifesto in the same vote where we accept the vision? 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. Best regards, Olaf ___ Mailing list: kde-ev-members...@kde.org. This is a private list. No content may be published or forwarded without permission by the author. https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-ev-membership --- End Message --- ___ kde-community mailing list
Re: [kde-community] Summary so far regarding the alternative/focused draft
Hi, First sorry to break the thread, I'm only receiving the digests. Since I'm fairly new to the community I didn't want to interfere in the discussion, that I find quite interesting. By reading it please consider this fact that I'm new here (~ 1 year) I answered below in the summary.. I tried to keep it short but... :D Le 12/02/2016 22:03, kde-community-requ...@kde.org a écrit : Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:52:22 +0100 From: Alexander Neundorf I'll try to summarize the points (as much as I can remember) which have been made wrt. to the alternative vision draft (https://community.kde.org/KDE/VisionDraftA). 1) There was the argument that some things which exist in KDE do not match the 4 items mentioned, e.g. a git-mirroring tool (or something like that). - How about extending item 4 "A cross-platform Software Development Kit" to not only talk about libraries, but also other development tools ? While I see those naturally as supporting the items mentioned in our draft, I wouldn't mind mentioning them explicitely. - the 4 items mentioned are the stuff where we see the focus, the emphasis, the core. This doesn't mean stuff which does not exactly fit into that is automatically "excluded". Should we change the wording somehow ? In all this discussion every time I read this argument, I thought about WikiToLearn. Well, if you read the posts on PlanetKDE, it's one of the most welcoming sub-community. People come and stick to KDE because they met this team. I think that even if it's not what I expected to see in KDE (it's web-based), I was quite happy to see how beneficial it was for our standing. I would have been sad that such a project might have been refused. 2) There was the argument that focussing on GUI software is too narrow, since it neglects CLI or future non-graphical user interfaces. I think we should keep KDE focused on software with graphical user interfaces. IMO that's enough territory to cover. As Martin Graeßlin said earlier in the conversation, I think this is dangerous. The future seems to be _also_ IoT. Things and programs you control by speech, or gestures. Not only clicking on (even nice) buttons. As we are good (or even expert?) in Qt, all this is "easily" reachable. Why not to use this capacity? If someone wanted to develop such a program with the GTK+ suite, (s)he would have a rather hard time, whereas Qt already has libraries for this. When I came first to KDE, it was *really* because it's a community that use Qt, and did most of the program I was using (desktop, music player...). Then I stayed because of the awesome community. And to me, what is KDE is not a type of products but really a way of behaving, of interacting together to construct something always nicer. Being part of KDE is a way for projects to be seen by other people (if you are registred on PlanetKDE, then Phoronix, Slashdot and other speak about you), it's also a frame because *you* know how to do things, it's mentoring and above all, for the user, it is a label. "It's a KDE project, it means" And our vision should be exactly that. The fact that the products have high quality and respect good values. After that, I don't see the problem of hosting a new website, a speech recognizer, a cool terminal, music player, libraries, and why not the next Qt-Framework for building websites? Or whatever. But of course, it's maybe a shift in the current goal of KDE. 3) Regarding "A complete set of cross-platform end-user applications", there was the question whether e.g. a gtk-application could also be a KDE application. Personally I'd like to keep the goal of providing consistent user interfaces etc. OTOH, if some gtk-application would really want to become a KDE project, they would probably want to follow our guidelines too. Currently this is not really explicitely excluded. What do you think ? 4) I guess we should make the opening statement (the actual vision) a bit shorter. Ideas ? As some others already said, a vision _is_, whatever you think about it, a catchy, motivating and easy-to-remember motto. People should associate the brand name (KDE) with it. Like for Plasma, "Simple by default, powerful when needed". It's catchy, and people remember it. It's what KDE needs to sell its products AND its community. So that people want to join. I think you are mostly arguing about the mission. I already said above what I think about the content. 5) my personal, real motivation to work on free software, especially KDE, is actually to provide the basic software people need to manage their digital life (desktop, file manager, document reader and creator, web browser, email, etc.) as free software, so it is available as common goods for everybody, like stencil and paper, instead of having to pay for them and depend on the will of some company. RMS's "Right to Read" influenced me a lot. What did I miss ? Comments, suggestions ? Alex Cheers, and thx Alex for this summary. Olivier
Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - first draft for discussion
On Feb 12, 2016 10:10 PM, "Alexander Neundorf" wrote:
>
> On Friday, February 12, 2016 21:37:23 Clemens Toennies wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 2016 9:14 PM, "Alexander Neundorf" wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 12, 2016 21:00:37 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > Maybe what you want is an overarching product vision instead of a
> >
> > community
> >
> > > > vision, after all?
> > >
> > > I think I can answer at least for everybody from the alternative-draft
> >
> > team,
> >
> > > maybe also for the people who want more "direction" in KDE: yes.
> >
> > And you're "overarching (product) vision" to be adopted by all of KDE
would
> > have to specifically mention "based on Qt"?
>
> For the applications, I'm not completely sure, but anyway this would be
just
> my opinion, I asked for the opinions of the others in my other mail
> ("Summary...").
Some thoughts about the possibilities of being "inclusive":
For KDE, a strategy used by the Romans to grow and sustain in size might be
successfull:
The Romans expanded by allowing people with "different missions" like
religious practices to exist within their empire, provided they accepted
the overall "vision" of basically being a Roman citizen abiding by defined
rules (imo our manifesto) and then gave them benefits like free public
bath, protection, etc.
So imo gtk or webcentric programs would be welcomed additions since they
diversified and expanded _the reach_ of the Empire.
Of course this topic is never black and white.
But maybe that example shows, that being more inclusive is not just
happy-people having an "illusionary, non-real world" vision here.
Greetings, Clemens.
___
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
On Friday, February 12, 2016 21:37:23 Clemens Toennies wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2016 9:14 PM, "Alexander Neundorf" wrote:
> > On Friday, February 12, 2016 21:00:37 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > Maybe what you want is an overarching product vision instead of a
>
> community
>
> > > vision, after all?
> >
> > I think I can answer at least for everybody from the alternative-draft
>
> team,
>
> > maybe also for the people who want more "direction" in KDE: yes.
>
> And you're "overarching (product) vision" to be adopted by all of KDE would
> have to specifically mention "based on Qt"?
For the applications, I'm not completely sure, but anyway this would be just
my opinion, I asked for the opinions of the others in my other mail
("Summary...").
Alex
___
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
On Feb 12, 2016 9:56 PM, "Alexander Dymo" wrote: > > >> Maybe what you want is an overarching product vision instead of a community > >> vision, after all? > > > > I think I can answer at least for everybody from the alternative-draft team, > > maybe also for the people who want more "direction" in KDE: yes. > > +1 > > It's "we do something useful" vs "we're happy and idealistic group of people" Sorry to ask: Is this ironic with regards and respect for the people actually doing the work? Greetings, Clemens. ___ 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
On Feb 12, 2016 9:58 PM, "Alexander Dymo" wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Clemens Toennies > wrote: > > And you're "overarching (product) vision" to be adopted by all of KDE would > > have to specifically mention "based on Qt"? > > It was actually pushed way down into the last part of the mission paragraphs... So is there anyone from the "focused" team who wants to see this as concrete part of the actual "vision"? Greetings, Clemens. ___ 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
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Clemens Toennies wrote: > And you're "overarching (product) vision" to be adopted by all of KDE would > have to specifically mention "based on Qt"? It was a debatable point even within our group :) It was actually pushed way down into the last part of the mission paragraphs during the internal discussion. ___ 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
>> Maybe what you want is an overarching product vision instead of a community >> vision, after all? > > I think I can answer at least for everybody from the alternative-draft team, > maybe also for the people who want more "direction" in KDE: yes. +1 It's "we do something useful" vs "we're happy and idealistic group of people" ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
[kde-community] Summary so far regarding the alternative/focused draft
Hi, I'll try to summarize the points (as much as I can remember) which have been made wrt. to the alternative vision draft (https://community.kde.org/KDE/VisionDraftA). 1) There was the argument that some things which exist in KDE do not match the 4 items mentioned, e.g. a git-mirroring tool (or something like that). - How about extending item 4 "A cross-platform Software Development Kit" to not only talk about libraries, but also other development tools ? While I see those naturally as supporting the items mentioned in our draft, I wouldn't mind mentioning them explicitely. - the 4 items mentioned are the stuff where we see the focus, the emphasis, the core. This doesn't mean stuff which does not exactly fit into that is automatically "excluded". Should we change the wording somehow ? 2) There was the argument that focussing on GUI software is too narrow, since it neglects CLI or future non-graphical user interfaces. I think we should keep KDE focused on software with graphical user interfaces. IMO that's enough territory to cover. 3) Regarding "A complete set of cross-platform end-user applications", there was the question whether e.g. a gtk-application could also be a KDE application. Personally I'd like to keep the goal of providing consistent user interfaces etc. OTOH, if some gtk-application would really want to become a KDE project, they would probably want to follow our guidelines too. Currently this is not really explicitely excluded. What do you think ? 4) I guess we should make the opening statement (the actual vision) a bit shorter. Ideas ? 5) my personal, real motivation to work on free software, especially KDE, is actually to provide the basic software people need to manage their digital life (desktop, file manager, document reader and creator, web browser, email, etc.) as free software, so it is available as common goods for everybody, like stencil and paper, instead of having to pay for them and depend on the will of some company. RMS's "Right to Read" influenced me a lot. What did I miss ? Comments, suggestions ? Alex ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Vision, mission and manifesto - what is their definition and purpose?
On Feb 12, 2016 9:15 PM, "Alexander Neundorf" wrote: > > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 10:17:03 Sebastian Kügler wrote: > > In a do-ocracy such as KDE, you take part and are able to influence > > direction, or you stand at the sidelines and watch, but you don't stand at > > the sidelines and watch and dictate through backdoor politics. > > This is what I actually wanted to point out. > The decision, that we need a "community vision", and not a "product vision" > was made by the inclusive-draft team, consisting at that time of 5 people in > private discussion, and then presented as only choice to the community. We no longer have only 1 product, hence 1 product vision doesnt make any more sense. Greetings, Clemens. ___ 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
On Feb 12, 2016 9:14 PM, "Alexander Neundorf" wrote: > > On Friday, February 12, 2016 21:00:37 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: > ... > > Maybe what you want is an overarching product vision instead of a community > > vision, after all? > > I think I can answer at least for everybody from the alternative-draft team, > maybe also for the people who want more "direction" in KDE: yes. And you're "overarching (product) vision" to be adopted by all of KDE would have to specifically mention "based on Qt"? Greetings, Clemens. ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Vision, mission and manifesto - what is their definition and purpose?
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 10:17:03 Sebastian Kügler wrote: > On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 09:42:31 PM Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > > > Also, what do you think about the relation between vision and mission > > > > ? > > > > > > When I joined the "vision team", my original proposal was to only define > > > a > > > mission, because I felt that visions make more sense for products than > > > for > > > communities. > > > However, Lydia convinced me that having a common vision for the future > > > to > > > work towards can have more positive effect on a sense of purpose and > > > motivation than only defining a strategy, so I agreed to define a vision > > > first and then derive the mission from that. > > > > That's just Lydias opinion. > > No need for this, not even if you think it's funny. For the record, it's > *not* just Lydia's opinion, so don't try to give that impression. sorry, I didn't choose good words to express what I wanted to say. > > No, seriously, in the last weeks several people contacted me in private > > email and expressed that they are not exactly happy, some even seriously > > frustrated with the strong emphasis on non-technical topics in KDE in the > > last few years, and they would prefer to get some more emphasis on > > technology and products back. > > You know, same here: People express concerns about people who want to steer > KDE into a self-fullfilling, narrow-minded playground project. are you saying that the people who would prefer some more technical direction are wrong, they want the wrong thing, what you call "self-fulfilling, narrow- minded playground project" ? Can we please assume that everybody who is in KDE wants it succeed, and consider their opinions seriously ? I'm sure nobody here wants to harm KDE. > You know what I tell them: Please take part in the open discussions about > that -- that is why we're having these discussions. > > In a do-ocracy such as KDE, you take part and are able to influence > direction, or you stand at the sidelines and watch, but you don't stand at > the sidelines and watch and dictate through backdoor politics. This is what I actually wanted to point out. The decision, that we need a "community vision", and not a "product vision" was made by the inclusive-draft team, consisting at that time of 5 people in private discussion, and then presented as only choice to the community. I want to offer the community an alternative, so the community can actually decide, and not just approve the only option. Alex ___ 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
On Friday, February 12, 2016 21:00:37 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: ... > Maybe what you want is an overarching product vision instead of a community > vision, after all? I think I can answer at least for everybody from the alternative-draft team, maybe also for the people who want more "direction" in KDE: yes. Alex ___ 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
On Freitag, 12. Februar 2016 12:07:27 CET Alexander Dymo wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote: > > Why should there be a line? > > I've been managing software development organizations since 2008. I > attest to the importance of drawing a line. There's so much you can do > with software. Unless you learn to say "no", you will not make a good > product. > By the way, I learned this the hard way in open source world too. Let > me tell you a story. > > When I was a KDevelop maintainer during 3.x cycle, I welcomed every > single KDevelop plugin into the core. > > End result? We did not attract new developers this way, but instead > were forced to maintain a huge collection of barely useful software > with a small team. > > During 4.x development we clearly defined the core of KDevelop. It was > to be a great C++ IDE. Any plugin that did not fit into the core was > separated into its own repository. What remained received as much > attention as possible. > > End result? A much better product. New contributors. And guess what? > Some of the plugins that were separated not only survived, but saw > more development and usage. See, here is the big difference: I (and I'm pretty certain most of the people arguing for an "inclusive" vision here) fully agree that a _product_ vision not only has to make clear what the product _should_ be, but also what it should _not_ be. A product vision has to give a clear focus, because there is only so much you can do with given resources in a given time, plus more features increase code complexity and make maintaining the code more complex. What we're talking about here, however, is not a product vision. Not at all. It is about how a _community_ wants the future to be. It is on a much higher level than a product vision. Maybe what you want is an overarching product vision instead of a community vision, after all? ___ 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
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. So I'd like to know too whether there are any technical limits or requirements for the Free software mentioned in the inclusive draft: "KDE, through the creation of Free software, enables users to control their digital life. KDE software enables privacy, makes simple things easy and complex scenarios possible while crossing device boundaries." Until now the inclusive-team expressed that they don't see any technical requirements, as long as the motivation of the people behind the software projects matches ours. I'd like to know whether I understand that correctly (and things like, as I said, compilers, curses tools, a shell, OS kernels, etc.) are considered just as good KDE projects as "classical" GUI software, or whether there is still an implied focus on GUI software ? Also, one of the main motivations for the original KDE email was to get rid of the many different toolkits and instead provide a set of applications with a consistent, easy-to-use user interface. From what I read, it is not obvious to me whether this is still considered a priority. What is the opinion of the inclusive-draft team to that ? Alex ___ 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
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote: > Why should there be a line? I've been managing software development organizations since 2008. I attest to the importance of drawing a line. There's so much you can do with software. Unless you learn to say "no", you will not make a good product. By the way, I learned this the hard way in open source world too. Let me tell you a story. When I was a KDevelop maintainer during 3.x cycle, I welcomed every single KDevelop plugin into the core. End result? We did not attract new developers this way, but instead were forced to maintain a huge collection of barely useful software with a small team. During 4.x development we clearly defined the core of KDevelop. It was to be a great C++ IDE. Any plugin that did not fit into the core was separated into its own repository. What remained received as much attention as possible. End result? A much better product. New contributors. And guess what? Some of the plugins that were separated not only survived, but saw more development and usage. ___ 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
> Honestly, after all these words, I don't think that this is a "focused" > vision, but more of an "exclusive" one (from the verb "to exclude"). In my > opinion this somehow invalidates the proposal itself, as it will be > inapplicable to already existing, live and vibrant KDE projects. Prioritization (focus) and exclusion are different things. I did previously say that some of these projects that you care about may be better off being independent. I can explain if you wish. ___ 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
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. ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Vision, mission and manifesto - what is their definition and purpose?
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Cornelius Schumacher wrote: > As it already was mentioned in the thread we should not focus on criteria who > and what to keep out, but we should focus on what drives us forward. That's exactly our "focused" group point. How the vague and unreachable vision can drive us forward? We want something specific. A goal that is reachable. ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Vision, mission and manifesto - what is their definition and purpose?
On Donnerstag, 11. Februar 2016 22:46:46 CET Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > The vision may leave quite a bit of room for interpretation, especially > since it will be short. Some may understand one thing, some may understand > another thing. This will lead to more conflicts later on due to > misunderstandings (like "we cannot put this into the mission because it > contradicts the vision, which we already agreed on.") We should be clear about what the vision is. It's not a legal or technical document, it's about expressing our idea of our purpose, our common dream. The vision alone won't keep people together or give complete criteria about what to do. This always have to be done by people willing to cooperate, to constructively interpret, and to realize the emotional value of a vision in more practical terms. There is more to it which has to accompany the vision, common values, missions, strategy, plans, etc. No vision document, however well it is written, will prevent conflicts or give definitive answers, and there always will be projects which will only tangentially be touched by the vision. As it already was mentioned in the thread we should not focus on criteria who and what to keep out, but we should focus on what drives us forward. -- Cornelius Schumacher ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
