Re: [kde-community] Fwd: KDE Vision – towards “wholesame” solutions

[Alexander Dymo]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:50 AM, Martin Graesslin  wrote:
>> Maybe GUI -> UI would solve that. Or "primary focus is the UI".
> Would be much better. It at least doesn't exclude things like speech
> recognition.

+1 to the UI

> Using a simple example: today I created a GSoC project idea which is a docker
> container for KWin to be useable as a Plasma mobile emulator and also cloud.
> Is that UI? I don't know. It would render somwhere, but is that enough to
> consider it as a UI? Or is in that case KWin just a piece of server software
> without any UI (e.g. access through VNC/rdesktop/html5 with no direct
> interaction in KWin)?

It's rather simple. All these pieces (and also the Akonadi example
that Ingo brought) are the foundation/infrastructure to the "thing"
that the end user will see on their device and interact with.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Fwd: KDE Vision – towards “wholesame” solutions

[Jaroslaw Staniek]

On 15 February 2016 at 19:12, Ingo Klöcker  wrote:

> On Sunday 14 February 2016 23:57:56 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 13, 2016 13:12:52 Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > To me too, but I still miss the reference that it is about software
> > with graphical user interfaces (GUI's can also have gesture or voice
> > input etc.), which Olaf seems to imply too.
> > I mean, we are not targetting e.g. sensor networks built from 8bit uCs
> > communicating to some big online server, with no user intervention
> > (which would fit that description too), or are we ?
>
> Please don't speak for me. You've made it absolutely clear that _you_
> are only interested in GUI. That's totally fine. We need people who
> focus on (G)UI applications. But we also need people who focus on non-
> GUI-stuff. A large part of Frameworks 5 is non-GUI-stuff. Akonadi (and
> its spin-off) is non-GUI stuff.
>
> Therefore, I'm against a-priori excluding anybody who is not interested
> in (G)UI applications from KDE by restricting ourselves in our vision to
> (G)UI applications.
>
> Of course, the mission statement can mention that we _mostly_ (but not
> entirely) focus on (G)UI applications and supporting libraries and
> services.
>
>
>
>From another angle: it's something seriously not good if mature, nontrivial
apps are ​not layered. Then, for sufficiently complex challenges (think
PIM, IDEs, RADs) the architecture benefits from having purely non-GUI
layers. It's a bit more forced by-design with the Qt Quick tech but should
be encouraged also for the QWidget world that is the current stable reality
for us, KDE.


> Regards,
> Ingo
>
> ___
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
>



-- 
regards, Jaroslaw Staniek

KDE:
: A world-wide network of software engineers, artists, writers, translators
: and facilitators committed to Free Software development - http://kde.org
Calligra Suite:
: A graphic art and office suite - http://calligra.org
Kexi:
: A visual database apps builder - http://calligra.org/kexi
Qt Certified Specialist:
: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Fwd: KDE Vision – towards “wholesame” solutions

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Sunday 14 February 2016 23:57:56 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 13:12:52 Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> To me too, but I still miss the reference that it is about software
> with graphical user interfaces (GUI's can also have gesture or voice
> input etc.), which Olaf seems to imply too.
> I mean, we are not targetting e.g. sensor networks built from 8bit uCs
> communicating to some big online server, with no user intervention
> (which would fit that description too), or are we ?

Please don't speak for me. You've made it absolutely clear that _you_ 
are only interested in GUI. That's totally fine. We need people who 
focus on (G)UI applications. But we also need people who focus on non-
GUI-stuff. A large part of Frameworks 5 is non-GUI-stuff. Akonadi (and 
its spin-off) is non-GUI stuff.

Therefore, I'm against a-priori excluding anybody who is not interested 
in (G)UI applications from KDE by restricting ourselves in our vision to 
(G)UI applications.

Of course, the mission statement can mention that we _mostly_ (but not 
entirely) focus on (G)UI applications and supporting libraries and 
services.


Regards,
Ingo


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Fwd: KDE Vision – towards “wholesame” solutions

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 9:06:48 AM CET Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> On 15 February 2016 at 07:54, Martin Graesslin  wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 14, 2016 11:57:56 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >> 
> >> To me too, but I still miss the reference that it is about software with
> >> graphical user interfaces (GUI's can also have gesture or voice input
> >> etc.), which Olaf seems to imply too.
> > 
> > I can only repeat my advice: please don't close doors for KDE by focusing
> > on GUI. There is a world beyond GUI and KDE partially already entered it.
> > Don't close it.
> 
> Maybe GUI -> UI would solve that. Or "primary focus is the UI".

Would be much better. It at least doesn't exclude things like speech 
recognition.

Nevertheless I would still suggest that we elaborate where KDE might be going 
and whether that fits under UI. Especially under consideration what we already 
do.

Using a simple example: today I created a GSoC project idea which is a docker 
container for KWin to be useable as a Plasma mobile emulator and also cloud. 
Is that UI? I don't know. It would render somwhere, but is that enough to 
consider it as a UI? Or is in that case KWin just a piece of server software 
without any UI (e.g. access through VNC/rdesktop/html5 with no direct 
interaction in KWin)?

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Fwd: KDE Vision – towards “wholesame” solutions

[Jaroslaw Staniek]

On 15 February 2016 at 07:54, Martin Graesslin  wrote:
> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 11:57:56 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> To me too, but I still miss the reference that it is about software with
>> graphical user interfaces (GUI's can also have gesture or voice input etc.),
>> which Olaf seems to imply too.
>
> I can only repeat my advice: please don't close doors for KDE by focusing on
> GUI. There is a world beyond GUI and KDE partially already entered it. Don't
> close it.

Maybe GUI -> UI would solve that. Or "primary focus is the UI".

Indeed we don't need to say "GUI" too much, that's similar case as
with Qt - many outsiders relate it to "just" the GUI stuff, what,
depending on the reason, isn't correct or honest.

(/me as developer of KDb, non-GUI stuff, since 2004)

>> I mean, we are not targetting e.g. sensor networks built from 8bit uCs
>> communicating to some big online server, with no user intervention (which
>> would fit that description too), or are we ?
>
> Please ask yourself the following question: what if a project inside KDE
> started to do it? What would happen with the project? Would they stay in or
> would they leave KDE?
>
> I understand that you want to draw a line to define what KDE is. The danger
> here is that this will always only work to exclude things. Drawing the line is
> not easy. Just right now in your last mail you redefined GUI to include speech
> recognition so that the line would cover that. Dangerous, just dangerous. By
> leaving so much open for interpretation your drawing a line doesn't work.
>
> So go from the other side. Look at where KDE might be going with it's own
> projects and everything where it might go must be inside the line. And then
> you realize that the line doesn't make much sense.
>
> If you draw the line to exclude you must be willing to kick projects out,
> otherwise it doesn't make sense. If you don't kick them out and keep the line
> to exclude projects coming in you create a two class society, a project
> hostile to incorporating new projects.
>
> Both are things I don't want KDE to be. I don't want my projects being kicked
> out because they might not do GUI. Neither do I want to be part of a community
> which is excluding projects which do not fit, although KDE itself has projects
> which fit.
>
> Thus: don't mention GUI in the vision.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
> ___
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community



-- 
regards, Jaroslaw Staniek

KDE:
: A world-wide network of software engineers, artists, writers, translators
: and facilitators committed to Free Software development - http://kde.org
Calligra Suite:
: A graphic art and office suite - http://calligra.org
Kexi:
: A visual database apps builder - http://calligra.org/kexi
Qt Certified Specialist:
: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Fwd: KDE Vision – towards “wholesame” solutions

[Alexander Neundorf]

Hi,

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 13:12:52 Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer
> 
>  wrote:
> > sent to wrong mailinglist by mistake ...
> > 
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: "Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer" 
> > To: kde-ev-members...@kde.org
> > Cc:
> > Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:19:00 +
> > 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). 

Actually the product-based draft had that earlier, there was cross-pollination 
between the two :-)
( https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=KDE/VisionDraftA=45297 )

> > The consistency is, I think, what
> > motivates the product-focussed team.

this, and even more that we want to put the product into focus again.


...
> > 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.

+1
I fully agree with your point that local software should be well integrated 
with online-services, and that KDE should try to provide that.

You say the wording is "restrictive". What exactly do you consider restrictive 
there ?
Do you understand "to achieve that, we work on:" as "we work on exactly that, 
and nothing else" ?
Our intention is to say that those 4 items are the main focus, which we work 
on, and of course everything that supports those (I said that already earlier 
in some mail). So online-software that integrates well with the local 
applications is also in scope.
What's not in scope would be online-software that has no relation to the local 
software (as you say, nothing would be integrated then).

Having said that, it is just a draft, a suggestion.
Not that much effort has been put into the exact words.
Also the 4 items are just a suggestion.
Olaf, if you think those could be modified or something added, please say so. 
:-)


> 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.

To me too, but I still miss the reference that it is about software with 
graphical user interfaces (GUI's can also have gesture or voice input etc.), 
which Olaf seems to imply too.
I mean, we are not targetting e.g. sensor networks built from 8bit uCs 
communicating to some big online server, with no user intervention (which 
would fit that description too), or are we ?
 
> > 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 think everybody agrees to that.
 
> > I consider it extremely important that we have clarity on the following
> > questions, and would like to hear an “official” answer from 

Re: [kde-community] Fwd: KDE Vision – towards “wholesame” solutions

[Lydia Pintscher]

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer
 wrote:
> sent to wrong mailinglist by mistake ...
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer" 
> To: kde-ev-members...@kde.org
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:19:00 +
> 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
> 

[kde-community] Fwd: KDE Vision – towards “wholesame” solutions

[Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer]

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