Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - second draft for discussion

[Valorie Zimmerman]

Oooo, Steve! Thank you for capping off an excellent discussion.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Kelly  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  their digital life"
>
> is fantastic!
>
> The exact expression and placement of commas in the  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 

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - second draft for discussion

[Stephen Kelly]

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  their digital life"

is fantastic!

The exact expression and placement of commas in the  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