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

Martin Graesslin mgraesslin at kde.org
Thu Feb 4 15:26:05 GMT 2016

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:53:57 AM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> Let's take one of your examples: some imaginary sensory tech that
> follows your mind. It's going to be a competitive advantage to both
> Plasma and applications, for sure. Can it be a KDE project? Yes,
> because it clearly brings KDE closer to its goal. And actually, both
> visions/missions would support inclusion of such a tech into KDE.

Now that you make it more clear that the focus of a technology would be 
whether it helps for example Plasma I need to chime in.

As a maintainer of Plasma and as the maintainer of the largest single piece of 
software inside Plasma I want to say that I'm against a focus on Plasma. I do 
not want to see KDE decide for projects whether they give a "competitive 
advantage" to Plasma. I thought we had left this years behind us. Although my 
work is focused on Linux I'm happy for the Windows and OSX and Android efforts 
and want KDE to be strong in these areas. I'm afraid that any focus on Plasma 
will harm KDE and thus also Plasma.

Furthermore I must observe that the KDE community as large does not care about 
Plasma and a focus on Plasma. Please have a look on how many devs contribute 
to e.g. KWin and the Wayland effort. It's what will take the desktop to the 
next level, but hardly anybody works on it. So from my perspective: a focus on 
the desktop is in all way wrong for KDE. That's not KDE.

-------------- 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/20160204/4a7c5212/attachment.sig>

More information about the kde-community mailing list