[kde-community] KDE Mission - let's do this! : Feedback on survey draft

Agustín Benito toscalix at gmail.com
Mon May 23 14:27:40 BST 2016


Sent from mobile

On 22 May 2016 19:29, "Thomas Pfeiffer" <thomas.pfeiffer at kde.org> wrote:
> On Sonntag, 22. Mai 2016 15:38:39 CEST Agustin Benito (toscalix) wrote:
> > One of our historical problems, in my opinion, has been our little
> > engagement with the "commercial world". Words can help or holding us
> > back from turning up side down our current situation.
> >
> > Two examples:
> >
> > I consider the word  "support" controversial. Support in commercial
> > environments has a specific meaning. It is related with paid service.
> > I would use a different word.
> How about "compatibility with"?
> > The other word is "product".
> >
> > I understand that Open Source projects, and we are no exception, have
> > a bigger and better "end to end" conscious. That is good. Still, there
> > are several stages of what the commercial world understands as
> > "product cycle" we do not cover. The motivation for creating
> > "products" is also different, so the expected outcome.
> >
> > I would use a different word in the Mission statement.
> For me, using the word "product" is very important especially in the
> statement. Yes, we currently do not treat what we make as "products", and
> think that is a problem.
> If there are stages of a product life-cycle we do not cover, than chances
> that we _should_. Thinking in terms of products would remind us that we
> think about quality, about bringing our products to market or about
> "end of life" properly.
> This is one area where I think KDE is not "professional" enough, and it
> be helpful especially for a better relationship with the "commercial
world" if
> we improved that.
> > ++ KDE and Qt
> >
> > I think we should try to better reflect the aim that KDE has to become
> > even more relevant in the Qt ecosystem, and how important it is to us.
> > I read two references in the current draft:
> >
> > * "strives to make our products available on all major Free and
> > proprietary operating systems and platforms, for example by applying
> > Qt as a technology that allows easy portability"
> > * "provides frameworks and libraries which facilitate the development
> > of high-quality Qt applications"
> >
> > I would remove both references.
> >
> > The first one is irrelevant. In the same way that we mentioned Qt we
> > could have mentioned any other technology. In a mission statement
> > every word counts. In fact, I think that in general we have too many
> > already. It is not easy, I understand.
> I had put that in because in the Vision discussion, several participants
> expressed their fear that KDE might be losing its focus on Qt, so I
wanted to
> make clear that Qt is still very important to us and we are still very
> important for Qt.
> Since the survey is there to find out what the majority of the community
> thinks, though, maybe I should add another question
> "Should a focus on Qt be stated in our Mission?"
> Then we find out what the community thinks.
> > The second one reduces our scope. I thought we agreed on being a host
> > for different projects. It seems here that if it is not a Qt based
> > app....
> We do host many different projects and they do not necessarily have to be
> based, but do we want to host non-Qt _libraries_ as well?
> > I would write instead a sentence that reflects the position within the
> > Qt ecosystem we want to play and how important it is to us.
> Suggestions for how to phrase such a question are welcome!
> > ++ Free vs Open Source
> >
> > I do not like the idea that "Open Source" is the default way for 99%
> > of the world to refer to Free Software. Like most of you, I think it
> > refers to a wider concept. open does not mean free, right? But,
> > specially in commercial environments, that is the current state.
> >
> > I propose to use "Open and Free Software", Free and Open Source
> > Software" or "Libre Software" instead of "Free Software" .
> Ok, makes sense, I'll change "Free Software" to "Free and Open-Source
> Software".
> > I think the above changes would help to reduce our gap with the
> > commercial world..
> >
> > ++ Participation in key forums
> >
> > There is something missing to me.
> >
> > The Free Qt Foundation has demonstrated to be a key player, we
> > participate in other forums.... How is that reflected in our mission
> > for the coming years? Do we want to improve our positioning? How? Is
> > it important to us? important enough to be reflected in the Mission
> > Statement? Do we participate only to promote Free Software values?
> Good point! Any idea how we could phrase that as a question for the
> > ++ "classic desktop"
> >
> > We have suffered the last few years from having two different visions
> > within our community on what desktop means/is. Going through the
> > process of redefining the strategy should serve to solve these kind of
> > fundamental issues.
> >
> > When I read the mission, I understand that we have used a "political
> > way" to provide satisfaction to both views. In that regard, these two
> > points:
> >
> > * aims for a presence on all relevant device classes (desktop, mobile,
> > embedded) * offers a "classic desktop" product which makes the switch
> > other popular operating systems easy
> >
> > do the job very well.
> >
> > I question though that this is the way to go. We should focus on
> > solving this issue and state the consensus clearly in the Mission
> > Statement instead of perpetuating the problem, leaving our mission,
> > that should lead our main goals for the coming years, unclear.
> >
> > Do we understand desktop as Plasma for a laptop or a PC or is a
> > desktop also Plasma for mobiles and embedded, for instance? Is a
> > desktop an "application" or a "base layer" in a block diagram where
> > apps lay upon? Is it both?
> >
> > At the mission level, what is so relevant (other than our own "issue")
> > that force us to differentiate between a 7"screen from a 32" one in
> > such a way?
> >
> > So my suggestion is to solve this controversy for once and find a
> > single sentence that reflects the agreement. If we cannot reach an
> > agreement, then the mission should reflect the minimum common
> > multiple, not both ideas. Mission statements are about agreements, not
> > a reflection of everybody's ideas. Mission statements are about taking
> > decisions, not about satisfying everybody.
> >
> > Maybe some of you think that this last point has little to do with
> > what it is written or what is happening. If that is the case, it might
> > be only about being a little more accurate, if possible.
> > If that is the case....
> >
> > 1.- I believe that mobile/desktop convergence is not an emerging trend
> > anymore.
> >
> > 2.- We do an innovative and modern desktop. Even if we do a "classical
> > desktop", we should not state it that way in our mission. The next few
> > years should be about keeping what is good about the "old concept"
> > that took us here and evolving it. We are not dealing with cars from
> > 1920 here. If we have to use quotes in a Mission statement, a document
> > that should be crystal clear not just to ourselves but the "external
> > world"...
> This is exactly the kind of question why I've set up the survey: I know
> some people still care a lot about the "classical desktop" (i.e. a thing
> runs on desktop and laptop PCs) whereas for others, desktop and laptop
PCs are
> just one among many device classes and form factors.
> Since the Mission should reflect where the majority of the KDE community
> to go, I want to offer people the possibility to clearly state what they
> about more. This is why I have both variants in the survey and we can see
> which gets what score.
> > I would like to finish thanking those who has put so much effort in
> > this document. My job here is easier. Take it as a constructive
> > opinion, please. I tried to be "graphical" in some of my comments.
> Thank you for your feedback!
> Providing the feedback earlier would have saved me the time it now takes
me to
> edit the survey, but that does not make it any less valid or useful, of
> :)

You are right. I should have payed attention to it earlier. Apologies.

> _______________________________________________
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20160523/f5b12655/attachment.htm>

More information about the kde-community mailing list