latest draft for mission (and strategy)

[Kevin Ottens]

Hello,

On Thursday, 6 July 2017 21:27:45 CEST Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> 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. :-)

Sure, I was a bit blunt with "don't like", I meant you wouldn't be thrilled if 
KDE chose that path. :-)

> > 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.

5? I missed a couple I guess. I spotted only "privacy" and "freedom" so far.

Note I'd be personally inclined to do an early filtering of them to avoid 
things which are way too generic and impossible to action. The reasoning being 
that if you line them up against more precise things they'd be picked up every 
time since they'd be more easily fitting larger groups... but they'd be 
counter-productive at building a direction.

One simple criterion for that could be "no single term proposal" because then 
you're just showing up a concept and that single word can be ambiguous enough 
to be misunderstood too. See for instance how I didn't quite complain about 
"privacy" but I did for "freedom", it's just than in one case I see a clear 
direction and actions we can take and not in the other one. Can be very 
different for someone else!

After all we're talking about selecting something like a 5 years strategy, I 
think it deserve more than just a word.

> > > 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

Regards.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20170707/714f8573/attachment.sig>