KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Jonathan Riddell]

The workboard item is https://phabricator.kde.org/T10477 ,  it wasn't
tagged KDE promo, it wasn't sent to the dot-editors list and I wasn't
pinged (I'm the only active volunteer Dot editor).

I've tried to discuss problems in promo with the e.V. board and CWG in
the past when long term contributors have left, when the team was
changed from a community team to a closed access team, when our
mailing lists were micro managed or when I was insulted for organising
a conference stall but I've only been dismissed or ignored and the
community at large seems happy for that to happen so I can't offer any
assurances of changes.

Jonathan

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 11:46, Christian Loosli <kde at fuchsnet.ch> wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> thanks for the wrap-up.
> I am less interested in pointing blame, and more interested in
>
> - how this could have happened
> - what our learnings are so this doesn't happen again in the future?
>
> It still is unclear to me how non-true accusations without further explanation
> made it into the article. Even for people who are not familiar with the
> subject, this imho should never happen. If you are not sure, you don't throw
> around accusations of things being insecure.
> It bothers me even more that there is a lengthy discussion on the subject (and
> a follow up survey and result) available to the people who participated in
> this, the article looked to me like this discussion, survey and result (that
> we did put a lot of time and effort in) were ignored.
>
> From what I gathered it even was given to the right people to proof-read, but
> the article was released without waiting for a reply. How can that happen, and
> why was it so urgent to push that article out?
>
> So to avoid this in the future, I'd like to see us following a process that
> does involved proof-reading by people familiar with the subject, so we look as
> professional as we as KDE should be by now, and usually are.
>
> As a last but not least, I'm also not terribly happy when people involved were
> also the ones still, in public, making statements against one of the
> technologies we decided to use and support, stating we should abandon them.
> Together with the flawed article this doesn't look good.
> I'd love to see people at least try to not let their personal views bias them
> too much, especially not when a group decision was made. I have my personal
> views and preferences on this too, but I try my best to accept the decision
> taken and support it.
>
> Thanks and kind regards,
>
> Christian
>
>