@jpetso Thanks for bringing up your thoughts. You mention a lot of valid points, and you are right that labs and certifications are some of the tools, but that they are certainly not enough to fully cover the topic of sustainable software. We do need to think beyond that. Currently the criteria for the Blue Angel are a great starting point, because they are concrete and actionable. But they also only cover one specific perspective. They are meant as first steps and what you mention about the effect of hardware and making this and other sustainability aspects visible to users is very much in scope of this goal. We don't want to prescribe how this is done, but use what research and community come up with. So while the plan focuses mostly on what we know how to do today, I would see it as a very natural evolution to add other ways to support the goal of sustainable software while we are going and learning.

Thanks @joseph, I added a summary at the beginning of the proposal.

Fixed the typos, thanks for the feedback.

Here is a possible template and a large list of open source related trademark policies: http://modeltrademarkguidelines.org/. This is for the policy on using trademarks which actually is quite a bit more than retelling the law. This is much more important than a policy on registering trademarks as we have many people and organizations using our trademarks every day, but the question on registering trademarks is quite rare.

👍

I like the 4th version with the KDEeco string. It might not fit for all occasions because of its width, but it has a nice vibe, elegant and a bit of understatement. The first one is also good. I think the K should definitely be blue. The original green seems to fit a bit better than the luscious green, but it also doesn't feel perfect yet in my view.

I would like to add one bullet point to the "what we care about": Reconnect to people who have worked in the KDE community in the past and recognize past contributions.

I would be careful with changes to the purpose, even if it's only redefining what our software is. Our non-profit status is tied to this purpose and changes to it could trigger a reexamination of that. As it works for us as it is right now, if you are aware that you have to read this through the perspective that it has been written one and a half decades ago, I don't see a strong reason to change it.

I would suggest to follow the conventions defined by https://reuse.software/

Looks good to me.

Yes, this is coming from Detlev. He is in contact with Ben, so I hope things will work out well.

Where are we with that?

Sorry, I can't make it. I tried but couldn't fit it into my schedule. I wish you a productive weekend. Looking forward to the results.

In terms of venues, in Berlin I could ask KDAB or Wikimedia for space. They both have nice places where we have done sprints before.

1. Berlin
2. Munich
3. Frankfurt

Some ideas for possible topics:

Paul asked me, if I could join the meeting. I'll add my availability to the Doodle. I'm travelling from Nürnberg, Germany. Berlin would be a great location.

Sorry, I don't have time to actually write down a policy. You might find some material or drafts in board mailing list or ev list archives.