Hi folks, since the CWG was referenced, I'll just reply here where we were mentioned. I'm a Dot editor and IRC/Matrix user too.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 5:35 AM Jonathan Riddell <j...@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 contribute sometimes, too. 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 > Hey Jon, I hope that the CWG response was not dismissive, and you were certainly not ignored. We always listen and try to help when possible. If you didn't feel at the very least listened to, we failed there. You are one of the most stalwart and longest-serving volunteers, so when you are unhappy and angry, I don't think anyone is happy about that. That doesn't mean that all of us see your list above as an accurate statement. > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 11:46, Christian Loosli <k...@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 > I was very unhappy with the published story as it first appeared because it led with attacks on IRC as a protocol rather than featuring the new choice we all have. More widespread review would, I hope, have exposed that. That said, the promo team is always dealing with late copy and a short time-frame. More widespread testing of the Matrix bridge would have helped the rollout as well, and I'm unaware of any attempt to do that. I hope that these is lessons learned. I'm taking the criticism of the CWG in as well. We have far too small a group now, and more members of the CWG are welcome. Write us and tell us about yourself if you are interested in helping out: community...@kde.org Valorie
