latest draft for mission (and strategy)

[Alexander Neundorf]

On 2017 M07 6, Thu 07:29:39 CEST Kevin Ottens wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 23:12:38 CEST Alexander Neundorf wrote:
...
> > Except that I don't think "Open Data" should really be THE focus of KDE
> > (but I guess you just used that as a random example ?), I fully agree.
> 
> It wasn't totally random, I picked one I knew you wouldn't like. :-)

It's not that I don't like the idea of "Open Data", it's just that IMO KDE is 
not the right community for it, that should be Wikimedia or some scientific 
computing groups. :-)

> And part of my point is that if something like "Open Data" ended up being
> picked, please don't argue it to death to prevent it. We will quickly know
> where everyone stands, but if that's a divisive discussion each we'll keep
> driving people away and we'll win nothing.
> 
> In fact, the selection process still needs to be found. As I mentioned
> earlier on we can't do it somewhat unilaterally like organizations like
> Mozilla can, we need to come up with a way to build up that consensus.

+1

How about collecting ideas for that ?
We have already 5.
 
> > I fully support the idea to figure out some one or a few "main focus"
> > areas
> > and push them.
> > I never meant, never even hinted to exclude projects which are not in this
> > main focus. But OTOH I think we don't need to attract them. Also my
> > impression is that this argument is currently used the other way round: we
> > are so diverse, e.g. Wiki2Lean, so it is impossible to define what our
> > main
> > focus is (implying that everything which is not mentioned in such a
> > statement would have to be excluded).
> 
> Yes, the fact that we want to write everything as globally encompassing
> prevent us from getting a direction because of our diversity. That's why I
> think having something not necessarily covering every project would help as
> long as we all accept 1) to be supportive of it even if it's not to our
> liking and 2) it's not used as a mean to exclude efforts which don't fall
> into it.
> 
> Both are important, otherwise I don't see it working.

+1
 
Alex