FWIW, i agree with Thomas. Vision discussions often result in long debates and little outcome. Our manifesto probably being a positive exception due to a clear ad limited scope and the leadership of who managed it.
I suggest to have and discuss shared ideas in specific areas but refrain from trying to come with an over-arching and likely over-reaching vision.
sent from my tablet, pls excuse me for brevity and bad spelling
On Tuesday 28 January 2014 21.39.14 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> when Heiko and me wrote our Human Interface Guideline for product
> Visions, we wanted to link to the overall KDE Vision. However, when we
> looked it up at
> http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/Usability/Principles/KDE4_Vision we
> noticed that it is for KDE4 and we haven't found a vision document for
> the next generation of our products yet. I think the majority of
> content from the KDE4 vision will still be relevant for the next
> generation, but we might want to update some parts of it as well.
That page said "accessed 500 times", for a document written in 2008, I'd
say its not been read that often.
A vision makes sense for a big company, to keep everyone towing the party-
line and avoid people misunderstanding where the leaders are going.
Its part of the ongoing communication from leaders to underlings.
In open source, Its tricky. Any vision for something like KDE will be made
up and not really be carried by the majority of the leaders, since everyone
contributing to open source is a leader.
It would make sense to for induvidual projects, any project where they can
agree on a vision, like in Krita, it will make a powerful communication
tool to future contributors.
In short; a vision is useful in itself, but for something as big as KDE, I
believe its not useful due to the vision itself not being representative.
--
Thomas Zander
_______________________________________________
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community