KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Helio Chissini de Castro]

Yes, i agreed to move elsewhere..
...as long the intention is just hide from the community and bury in
different place

This discussion should be public and visible to KDE community, as this is
the KDE spirit ever. If something was done wrong, everyone should be able
to understand and help to fix

We are not a closed club, or are we ?

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 15:31, Scott Harvey <scott at spharvey.me> wrote:

> 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> 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/b4e20cba/attachment.htm>