KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Scott Harvey]

Jonathan, et al -

Can I respectfully ask that this debate/dispute be moved elsewhere?

I've been on hiatus from my role as a minor KDE contibutor for a few 
months. It's not encouraging to resume paying attention only to find 
another argument in progress.

I suppose it could be argued that this maillist is intended for 
community discussion and that this is indeed a community issue... I 
just don't feel it's good for morale (mine, at least).


-Scott (sharvey)

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:34 AM, Jonathan Riddell <jr at jriddell.org> 
wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>> 
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20190226/1e1f2d6d/attachment.htm>