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

Vishesh Handa me at vhanda.in
Fri Feb 5 13:24:50 UTC 2016


On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Martin Graesslin <mgraesslin at kde.org> wrote:
> 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.

Alexander didn't mention only the desktop. Unless I'm mistaken he also
mentions applications. There do seem to be contributions in that area.

--
Vishesh Handa



More information about the kde-community mailing list