KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Laszlo Papp]

Hi Scott,

I can see your point, so not trying to challenge it.

I just feel that open means open, not open like in facebook context. In a
completely open environment, it is not just the success and easiness that
becomes available, but some respectful and fair arguments, difficulties,
etc, that need addressing.

I feel that KDE as a community will eventually benefit from feedback and
discussions like this if the community takes proper actions going forward.

Best regards,
Laszlo Papp

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 2:31 PM 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/20190226/9d6a470f/attachment.htm>