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

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 2:58:54 PM CET Martin Klapetek wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> so in the couple previous years we have collectively and
> repeatedly rejected the idea of other projects, that are not
> KDE projects by the Manifesto, to participate in KDE GSoC.
> Namely we rejected Tupi and SubSurface solely because
> "not a KDE project", GCompris became a KDE project and
> then we let it participate.
> 
> Last year we got a non-KDE project in our GSoC despite the
> previous years decisions, nobody really noticed and then there
> was a huge discussion if that's ok or not, but by that time it was
> a bit late.
> 
> 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 this year and in the following years?
> 
> Imho this goes against the Manifesto as the projects gets to
> "enjoy the benefits" without the complying with "commitments"
> of the Manifesto.

I'm not sure whether it's against the manifesto. Is that really a "benefit" 
that we do some admin work for them? One could also see it as an outreach to 
projects: hey look, we can do that much for you, don't you want to join, then 
you get also mentioned on the dot...

> It's also less transparent overall (not able to
> monitor progress as it's not on KDE infrastructure), can lead
> to cheating and possibly kicking KDE out of GSoC in the worst
> possible outcome.

Agree on that point. Also if we go for allowing we need to have clear rules in 
place to evaluate who goes in and who doesn't.

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20160204/5002d87f/attachment.sig>