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

Hi Ingo, On Friday, February 05, 2016 16:43:06 Ingo Klöcker wrote: > On Wednesday 03 February 2016 22:05:20 Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > KDE is an end-user focused, openly governed community of free software > > enthusiasts > > This is a description of what you (and me) think KDE is (or should

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

On Wednesday 03 February 2016 22:05:20 Alexander Neundorf wrote: > KDE is an end-user focused, openly governed community of free software > enthusiasts This is a description of what you (and me) think KDE is (or should be), but not what its goal (vision) is, unless you think that our goal should

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

On Friday, February 05, 2016 08:40:21 AM Alexander Dymo wrote: > You > can satisfy all the requirements in the manifesto, but still be a bad > candidate for a KDE project. As the extreme example, one could fork > Plasma and want to join KDE. There are less extreme cases. I wonder why you say that

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

On Wednesday 03 February 2016 10:10:27 Lydia Pintscher wrote: > The first draft reads as follows: > "KDE, through the creation of Free software, "through the creation of Free software" sounds like (part of) a mission statement to me. I'd leave it out of the vision statement. > enables users

Re: [kde-community] Should we allow non-KDE projects to participate in GSoC under KDE?

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Ingo Klöcker wrote: > On Wednesday 03 February 2016 14:58:54 Martin Klapetek wrote: > > So I'd like to have this cleared - does the community agree to > > have non-KDE projects, those that do not follow the Manifesto, > > participate in our GSoC

Re: [kde-community] RFC: Distribution outreach program

Hi Neofytos! On Dienstag, 2. Februar 2016 23:40:44 CET tetr...@openmailbox.org wrote: > I would like to propose a middle ground solution hoping it will > contribute to the discussion. It will imho serve everyone's interests; > KDE, distributions and users. > > The way I see it, the issue breaks

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

Ingo, you may be right here. If we extract the vision statement from the proposal, it would be something like: "An end user will have free software apps and shells/launchers on any device they use". Note, this is what I came up just now when writing this reply. This needs more thought, but the

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

On Thursday, February 04, 2016 08:53:57 AM Alexander Dymo wrote: > Let's say it wants to join KDE. Under the > "inclusive" proposal such a project will be welcomed. Under "focused" > - no. The vision document will never be a metric to accept or refuse a project. The manifesto is the only

[kde-community] Google Summer of Code Ideas needed now

Org applications open on 8 February, so we need to get moving on this. Unfortunately, our wikis are close for editing right now, because of two spam attacks. Until they are open again, we have a Google Doc. Google Summer of Code 2016 Ideas page is here: https://community.kde.org/GSoC/2016/Ideas .

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

As Lydia put it, it will be a clear frame of reference to make choices in. On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Riccardo Iaconelli wrote: > On Thursday, February 04, 2016 08:53:57 AM Alexander Dymo wrote: >> Let's say it wants to join KDE. Under the >> "inclusive" proposal such a

Re: [kde-community] Should we allow non-KDE projects to participate in GSoC under KDE?

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:53:48 AM CET Ivan Čukić wrote: > > Just FTR, we don't give away our own slots, but we ask for slots after > > we decide how many projects we are going to select. > > And with that I'm completely fine. I just found myself physically shaking my head at some of the

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

On Friday, February 05, 2016 08:01:49 AM Alexander Dymo wrote: > As Lydia put it, it will be a clear frame of reference to make > choices in. No way. Quoting Ben Cooksley: This criteria has already been laid out by the KDE Community, in a document called the Manifesto. It lays out fairly

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

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote: > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 10:10:27 AM CET Lydia Pintscher wrote: >> The first draft reads as follows: >> "KDE, through the creation of Free software, enables users to control >> their digital life. KDE software

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

Answering the first part of your email: Vision and mission would help us determine whether the project that wants to join KDE shares the same goals and follows the same path. You can satisfy all the requirements in the manifesto, but still be a bad candidate for a KDE project. As the extreme

Re: [kde-community] Should we allow non-KDE projects to participate in GSoC under KDE?

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Teo Mrnjavac wrote: > On Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:53:48 AM CET Ivan Čukić wrote: > > > Just FTR, we don't give away our own slots, but we ask for slots after > > > we decide how many projects we are going to select. > > > > And with that I'm