On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> The technology is something that does not belong into the vision.
Why? It would be strange for the tech organization/community like KDE,
IMHO of course.
PS: I reread the https://topnonprofits.com/examples/vision-statements/
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Torsten Rahn wrote:
>
>> TikiWiki or Drupal or whatever then the vision ("Imagine a world in
>> which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all
>> knowledge. That's our commitment.") would stay untouched because
>
> Oh, so you
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 8:40:07 AM CET David Edmundson wrote:
> I have two main questions. I'll make them as new threads.
>
> KDE as a community currently has a clear unique selling point for new
> projects; Qt libraries, Qt expertise, and connections. A common thread that
> makes it worth
Hello,
Sorry, but there was a bait I couldn't resist here. :-)
On Tuesday, 9 February 2016 11:55:35 CET Marco Martin wrote:
> * "makes simple things easy" not sure about that, aren't simple things
> already supposed to be easy? :p (makes doing things easy?)
In fact not, simple things can be
On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 08:40:07 AM David Edmundson wrote:
> With the unfocussed vision,
Unfocused?
One vision focuses on technologies (Qt, GUI, etc.), one on values (Freedom,
user control, privacy). Both provide focus, just very different ones.
A vision is a goal, a desired result.
I have two main questions. I'll make them as new threads.
KDE as a community currently has a clear unique selling point for new
projects; Qt libraries, Qt expertise, and connections. A common thread that
makes it worth being a community. We've seen this work in the past with
existing Qt projects
On Wednesday 03 February 2016 10:10:27 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 enables privacy, makes simple things
> easy and complex scenarios possible while crossing
On Tuesday 09 February 2016 12:19:54 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry, but there was a bait I couldn't resist here. :-)
>
> On Tuesday, 9 February 2016 11:55:35 CET Marco Martin wrote:
> > * "makes simple things easy" not sure about that, aren't simple things
> > already supposed to be
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:40 AM, David Edmundson
wrote:
> I have two main questions. I'll make them as new threads.
>
> KDE as a community currently has a clear unique selling point for new
> projects; Qt libraries, Qt expertise, and connections. A common thread that
>
Thanks everyone for the comments and discussion so far. Please keep
them coming. We'll sit down to mingle the feedback into the second
draft this weekend.
Cheers
Lydia
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 09:24:43 PM Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> But more seriously: Wikimedia's vision doesn't say that all the
> knowledge has to be with Wikimedia - just that it must be universally
> and freely accessible.
... which is, incidentally, the reason why they have been helping us
Hey everyone,
analyzing the current discussions around the KDE Vision, I have identified one
problem which could underlie much of the tension:
It's still unclear what we mean by "vision", "mission" and "manifesto". We
cannot really consult a dictionary or encyclopedia to answer this, because
On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 07:55:08 Martin Graesslin wrote:
...
> This was more a rhetorical question. Apparently it didn't make it through.
> I'm worried about your vision closing a path for the future. Your vision
> setting a focus on past technologies, which will result in stagnation,
>
On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 11:59:26 Marco Martin wrote:
...
> I fear a part of the explanation is very simple and very sad...
> the first time around every participant was young and willing to ride the
> change, today several generations are living together in KDE
here is the mail from
On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 10:41:07 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
...
> As Martin said very well already: By defining our goals not in terms of
> technology but in terms of values and principles, we don't lose the
> technology aspect, we are still experts in Qt,
sure we'll lose it long-term.
If we
On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 23:07:56 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 10:41:07 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> ...
>
> > As Martin said very well already: By defining our goals not in terms of
> > technology but in terms of values and principles, we don't lose the
> >
On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 20:37:29 Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Alexander Dymo wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> >> The technology is something that does not belong into the vision.
> >
> > Why?
Hi,
I'll also start a new sub-thread.
Since this vision draft is very broad: what kind of projects do you consider
to be covered by this vision draft ?
Or, the other way round, are there projects, or types of projects which you
see as not part of this vision ?
Alex
On Monday, February 08, 2016 22:41:08 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> On Monday, February 08, 2016 21:42:58 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > I understand that you're saying it doesn't have a place in KDE.
> >
> > Sebas, you may have missed that I explicitely mentioned eigen in the mail
> > you replied
Hi Thomas,
On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 22:56:32 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
...
> That's why I'd suggest that, before discussing the vision any further, we
> should agree on a definition. It doesn't have to be one with which everybody
> wholeheartedly agrees, because it's mostly used for
Sorry, I think we simply cannot understand one another. We repeatedly
expressed the same idea several times.
We keep coming up with different words? That's natural. We're at the
"draft" stage, right?
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> On Monday,
> TikiWiki or Drupal or whatever then the vision ("Imagine a world in
> which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all
> knowledge. That's our commitment.") would stay untouched because
Oh, so you guys have the duty to store the internet?
SCNR ;-)
On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 22:56:32 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> analyzing the current discussions around the KDE Vision, I have identified
> one problem which could underlie much of the tension:
> It's still unclear what we mean by "vision", "mission" and "manifesto". We
> cannot
On Dienstag, 9. Februar 2016 23:35:38 CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 22:56:32 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> ...
>
> > That's why I'd suggest that, before discussing the vision any further, we
> > should agree on a definition. It doesn't have to be one
On Feb 9, 2016 11:42 PM, "Sebastian Kügler" wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 23:07:56 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 10:41:07 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > As Martin said very well already: By defining our goals not in terms
of
> > >
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 11:00:52 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 07:55:08 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> ...
>
> > This was more a rhetorical question. Apparently it didn't make it through.
> > I'm worried about your vision closing a path for the future. Your
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 11:15:38 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 20:37:29 Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Alexander Dymo wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> > >>
27 matches
Mail list logo