[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-community
Subject:    Re: Conservative proposal: let's work with Kiwi IRC
From:       Eike Hein <hein () kde ! org>
Date:       2017-08-17 1:21:38
Message-ID: A7036DAC-E18C-45A0-8538-A415E3F99B68 () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On August 16, 2017 6:58:35 PM GMT+09:00, Ilmari Lauhakangas \
<ilmari.lauhakangas@libreoffice.org> wrote:
> I want to note that I was intrigued by Eike's mail about a possible Qt 
> Quick -based Konversation reboot. I suggested I could try and gather 
> funding to get it to a releasable state, but he was hesitant because of
> 
> the usual issues with FOSS funding (who does the money go to exactly, 
> how to agree on goals etc.). It would be great to have a desktop client
> 
> with a GUI that stands out from the crowd. I proposed funding because I
> 
> have a lot of experience in promoting FOSS crowdfunding campaigns, 
> including Blender and Krita.

I need to expand on this, because I am now getting approached this morning outside of this \
thread with comments along the lines of "it's strange you are anti-funding when you are \
employed to work on FOSS?", which is a little uncomfortable and a misunderstanding that needs \
clearing up. :)

I was approached about this in the following manner, without any prior relationship, personal \
introduction or context, just:

2017-08-12.log:[10:25:49] <buovjaga> Sho_: would something like 5000 euros be enough to get \
Konvi NG to a runnable, presentable state?

I work a full-time job (which does not include Konvi) and have other responsibilities (e.g. \
serving on the KDE e.V. board), and similar things are true for the other active Konversation \
developers, so even though I honestly didn't really know what to make of this due to the manner \
it was submitted (casually in #kde and without any more details), I responded with a line \
expressing that it might be difficult to agree on requirements, timeline, involved developers \
and funds distribution. That wasn't because I have an anti-funding stance - it was purely to \
gauge how much thought they had given to their proposal and what those thoughts were. It was \
meant as the beginning of a conversation, not a conclusion.

It's not just time commitments - the exact nature of what Konvi-NG might be would be down to \
decisions made both by the Konvi team and the wider KDE community's (who we strive to support \
as one of our key user audiences). For example if the KDE community decides to use a chat \
service other than IRC in the future, I see us trying to support that service. Funding that \
comes with a requirement to go into a particular direction when the community's \
direction-setting is currently in process could then be problematic.

I have no general issue with sponsored development of (if planned and executed well). While I'm \
not sure how realistic it is for Konversation in the current situation, I'm certainly open to \
talking more, and I'm sure others in the project community are too.

Cheers,
Eike


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]