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

Carlo Condarelli carlocondarelli at yahoo.it
Mon May 23 15:53:58 BST 2016

Hello people!
i'm Carlo Condarelli former promoter of O.K.O.A. 17 conference (Open Knowledge Open Arts). 
That will take place in 2017 february in Catania Sicily Italy
We are starting the project for next year (in attachment a brief abstract)
we would be grateful to host KDE at OKOA works but its difficult to get in contact.
So I'm writing here hoping to have feed back.
You are doing a great job!

Lun 23/5/16, Agustín Benito <toscalix at gmail.com> ha scritto:

 Oggetto: Re: [kde-community] KDE Mission - let's do this! : Feedback on	survey draft
 A: "informing about and discussing non-technical community topics" <kde-community at kde.org>
 Data: Lunedì 23 maggio 2016, 14:27
 Sent from mobile
 On 22 May 2016 19:29, "Thomas Pfeiffer" <thomas.pfeiffer at kde.org>
 > 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
 > >
 > > 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
 > For me, using the word "product" is very
 important especially in the Mission
 > statement. Yes, we currently do not treat what we make
 as "products", and I
 > think that is a problem.
 > If there are stages of a product life-cycle we do not
 cover, than chances are
 > that we _should_. Thinking in terms of products would
 remind us that we should
 > think about quality, about bringing our products to
 market or about handling
 > "end of life" properly.
 > This is one area where I think KDE is not
 "professional" enough, and it would
 > 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
 > > * "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
 > 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 Qt-
 > based, but do we want to host non-Qt _libraries_ as
 > > 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
 > > ++ 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 survey?
 > > ++ "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 from
 > > 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
 > > 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 that
 > some people still care a lot about the "classical
 desktop" (i.e. a thing that
 > 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 wants
 > to go, I want to offer people the possibility to
 clearly state what they care
 > 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
 > > 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 course
 > :)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
 -----Segue allegato-----
 kde-community mailing list
 kde-community at kde.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: okoa 17Digit-Edu.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 199573 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20160523/2bc5e9ec/attachment.pdf>

More information about the kde-community mailing list