Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Christian Loosli]

Am Montag, 18. März 2019, 11:08:39 CET schrieb Boudewijn Rempt:
> On maandag 18 maart 2019 11:06:26 CET Eike Hein wrote:
> > On 3/18/19 6:38 PM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > > I'm sure people are working hard on fixing things up, but right now
> > > webchat.kde.org just does not work. If I look in at the Krita channel
> > > on webchat.kde.org, the last message is from 23:01 yesterday.> 
> > The Matrix folks told us they're working with freenode on an i:line and
> > spinning up an instance of the bridge on our server (currently the
> > bridging is running through the overloaded matrix.org homeserver). They
> > say this should help a lot.

The freenode side is ready (and has been for a few days). There was a short 
delay there due to the i-line request going through a specific person instead 
of through the official ways, so when KDE folk poked me, I had to poke that 
person first. 

> Would that also help with the delays when communicating on webchat.kde.org
> with other matrix users?

I'd be surprised if, since the bridge, from my understanding, should only 
affect Matrix <-> IRC and not Matrix <-> Matrix. I might be and I hope that I 
am wrong, best ask the Matrix Matthew in #kde-matrix-support. 

Kind regards, 

Christian

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On maandag 18 maart 2019 11:06:26 CET Eike Hein wrote:
> 
> On 3/18/19 6:38 PM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > I'm sure people are working hard on fixing things up, but right now 
> > webchat.kde.org just does not work. If I look in at the Krita channel on 
> > webchat.kde.org, the last message is from 23:01 yesterday.
> 
> The Matrix folks told us they're working with freenode on an i:line and 
> spinning up an instance of the bridge on our server (currently the 
> bridging is running through the overloaded matrix.org homeserver). They 
> say this should help a lot.
> 

Would that also help with the delays when communicating on webchat.kde.org with 
other matrix users? 

-- 
https://www.krita.org

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Eike Hein]

On 3/18/19 6:38 PM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:

I'm sure people are working hard on fixing things up, but right now 
webchat.kde.org just does not work. If I look in at the Krita channel on 
webchat.kde.org, the last message is from 23:01 yesterday.


The Matrix folks told us they're working with freenode on an i:line and 
spinning up an instance of the bridge on our server (currently the 
bridging is running through the overloaded matrix.org homeserver). They 
say this should help a lot.


That's from #kde-matrix-support BTW.


Cheers,
Eike

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On maandag 18 maart 2019 07:16:11 CET Luca Beltrame wrote:
> Il giorno Sun, 17 Mar 2019 23:25:01 +0100
> Albert Astals Cid  ha scritto:
> 
> > Matrix is right now more than 2 hours behind for #kde-devel making it
> > totally useless.
> 
> I don't see this big of a delay in large traffic channels like #plasma. The 
> worst
> I've seen is a handful of seconds in both directions (but I didn't time
> it). 

I see hours of delay as well in #krita, #kde-promo, #kde-devel -- all busy 
channels. It's worse than useless at the moment; it's actively cutting up the 
KDE community and making it impossible to communicate. Heck, I had to resort to 
email to get in touch with people last week because they would't read what I 
had written for an hour and a half.

> To be fair, I run my own server which is federated with whatever KDE
> uses, so I'm not sure if that is why.
 
Probably -- but that's not an option for everyone.

> Either way, not "totally useless".

I'm sure people are working hard on fixing things up, but right now 
webchat.kde.org just does not work. If I look in at the Krita channel on 
webchat.kde.org, the last message is from 23:01 yesterday.

-- 
https://www.krita.org

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Luca Beltrame]

Il giorno Sun, 17 Mar 2019 23:25:01 +0100
Albert Astals Cid  ha scritto:

> Matrix is right now more than 2 hours behind for #kde-devel making it
> totally useless.

I don't see this big of a delay in large traffic channels like #plasma. The 
worst
I've seen is a handful of seconds in both directions (but I didn't time
it). 

To be fair, I run my own server which is federated with whatever KDE
uses, so I'm not sure if that is why.

Either way, not "totally useless".

-- 
Luca Beltrame
GPG key ID: A29D259B


pgprAdTQlgpZs.pgp
Description: Firma digitale OpenPGP

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Albert Astals Cid]

El dimecres, 20 de febrer de 2019, a les 13:36:37 CET, Paul Brown va escriure:
> Hi all,
>   
> Some aspects of Matrix which make it particularly suitable for KDE are:

Some aspects of IRC which make it particularly suitable are:
 * It actually works

Matrix is right now more than 2 hours behind for #kde-devel making it totally 
useless.

Is there any plan to make sure one can use Matrix reliably? 

Because at this point i need to have the IRC client open to make sure that:
 * What i write in Matrix gets to IRC
 * What i read in Matrix is the latest thing that was on IRC

Cheers,
  Albert

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Christian Loosli]

Hello all

Terribly sorry to interrupt here, but would it maybe make sense to move this 
topic into its own, separate thread? 
It seems to not be much about the Matrix Infrastructure or related articles. 

This would make it easier to search, find and filter. 

Thanks for considering and kind regards, 

Christian

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On donderdag 28 februari 2019 21:48:15 CET Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 February 2019 16:38:30 CET Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > I get some unitemised t-shirts from old Akademys which is
> > appreciated.
> 
> .. and leftover QtWS shirts, and some other items that I had made. I forget 
> where I reported that -- I can't spot it on this list, so maybe I sent that 
> internally to the e.V.

I also donated Krita stuff. some of which was given away, some of which was 
sold, with the expectation that the proceeds would go to KDE e.V.

-- 
https://www.valdyas.org | https://www.krita.org

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Adriaan de Groot]

On Thursday, 28 February 2019 16:38:30 CET Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> I get some unitemised t-shirts from old Akademys which is
> appreciated.

.. and leftover QtWS shirts, and some other items that I had made. I forget 
where I reported that -- I can't spot it on this list, so maybe I sent that 
internally to the e.V.

As for stock-taking and finances, Jon wrote on February 6th of this year, after 
FOSDEM, a report on the FOSDEM happenings. It was titled "KDE at FOSDEM 2019". 
It specified stock changes, income, etc. There wasn't a lot of reaction to it.

That same message contained Jon's .. I don't know what to call it, really, 
maybe chip-on-the-shoulder .. grudge-statement about the financial query from 
the e.V. So this thread is beating a dead horse in many ways.

[ade]

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Albert Astals Cid]

El dijous, 28 de febrer de 2019, a les 16:38:30 CET, Jonathan Riddell va 
escriure:
> 
> I get some unitemised t-shirts from old Akademys which is
> appreciated.

Do I understand it correctly that KDE e.V. gave you t-shirts, you sold them and 
then kept the money?

That sounds quite bad to be honest.

Cheers,
  Albert

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Albert Astals Cid]

El dimecres, 20 de febrer de 2019, a les 13:36:37 CET, Paul Brown va escriure:
> Hi all,
>   
> You can try KDE's Matrix service right now by checking out https://
> webchat.kde.org 

What are we going to do with the constant loss of messages?

I posted a message in webchat.kde.org 10 minutes ago and it didn't make it to 
IRC yet (and i guess it'll never happen).

Having lost messages makes this whole thing unusable.

Cheers,
  Albert

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Jonathan Riddell]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 08:08:14AM -0700, Andy B wrote:
> On his insistence, we worked to have a
> more clear policy of access to social media.

The board didn't work to have a more clear policy of access to social
media.  The promo team did this.  What I'm frustrated at is
understanding why the board would restrict it in the first place
rather than accept and encourage it as a community project where
contributors can get full access like every other part of KDE.

Thanks for engaging.

Love Jonathan

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Jonathan Riddell]

Thanks for the discussion, it's what I've been missing :)

I've asked numberous e.V. board members and staff over the years how
e.V. can help people running conference stalls such as the one at
FOSDEM with stuff like logistics, banking, stocktaking, venue hire,
accounts review and stock storage, and each time I get back "meh",
sometimes literally.  Given e.V.'s resources and remit I would have
expected it to be able to help with some of these but so far it
doesn't.  I get some unitemised t-shirts from old Akademys which is
appreciated.

So in the spirit of KDE I've worked out how to do all that for FOSDEM,
it's quite a satisfying way to help the project and I enjoy it.

KDE GB was set up in 2006 to organise Akademy and work around the
limited help from the e.v. board at the time.  All transactions are
publically logged and itemised and I'd always welcome any review. I've
suggested making it a partner organisation of the e.v. to board
members before and suggested making it a registered charity in
Scotland which would bring in 20% extra revenue from any donations
from UK tax payers but heard back no interest from the e.v. so not
pursued it.

Jonathan

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Andy B]

Andy Betts
KDE Board
On Feb 28, 2019, 5:13 AM -0700, Jonathan Riddell , wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 03:06:22PM -0800, Valorie Zimmerman wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Thanks :)
>
> In over a decade of helping promo in KDE it was always the case that
> someone could come in and show willingness and competance and be given
> access to the accounts needed to be a full member. When I left the
> team in 2017 and came back in 2018 this had changed and I was told I
> could not get access to accounts, a decision which seems to have been
> taken by the e.v. board. We fixed this after Akademy 2018 with a
> formal policy. Will the CWG now look into why this change happened
> against the norms everywhere else in KDE?
>
> Jonathan


There has to be context to this, now that we have moved from the main topic and 
now dedicate this thread to solve issues that Jonathan has expressed. Maybe we 
can start a new thread.

To be clear, Jonathan has repeatedly used little tact when releasing 
information to the public. The e.V. Board received complaints and requests to 
manage the situation. We decided to do so and work with Jonathan to review his 
publication practices in social media. On his insistence, we worked to have a 
more clear policy of access to social media. Policy that Jonathan himself would 
follow. The Board agreed that this could help shape the way that Jonathan and 
others provide public, WIP information to the general public and have more tact 
when doing so.

Why is this still an issue that requires the CWG? I am not even sure. I thought 
Jonathan was over this when we did as he required, create an access policy 
within Promo.

Thank you,

Andy

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Eike Hein]

Hi,

of course "being insulted" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

I'm very tired of this accusation being thrown around, so let's do real talk 
and summarize the situation according to my best knowledge of events:

Jonathan Riddell sold KDE mechandising (t-shirts) at FOSDEM to attendees. He 
took payment for that mechandising via a card reader connected to a bank 
account he controls. People - not the board - initially asked him why this card 
reader cannot be connected to the KDE e.V. bank account instead.

His response has been to repeatedly not give a straight answer to this 
question, and instead throw a hissy-fit about how the e.V. is not doing its job 
and doesn't help organizing conferences. The board has received no inquiry 
about helping with payment solutions, and Jonathan, being a KDE e.V. member 
himself, has not lead any efforts to organize any within the membership to our 
knowledge. Whatever else, making a solution for himself doesn't help anyone 
else, either, so problem-solving appears as merely pretense.

According to a conversation with Jonathan, he considers himself to represent 
and/or lead (it's a bit unclear) a non-profit organization named "KDE GB", sold 
the merchandising as such and seems to intend to keep the money he collected. 
We at this time have no information on whether "KDE GB" is set up and acting in 
compliance with local and EU law and who its membership is. As he considers 
himself a non-profit, he did not sign the agreement that mechandising shops 
have signed or make any inquiry about it. "KDE GB" has also not signed the 
local satellite organization agreement or made any inquiry about doing so after 
being informed of its existence.

Let's be clear: The e.V. cares because it's required to protect KDE's 
trademarks and wants to protect KDE's reputation in the world. The KDE e.V. is 
also a organization that gets work done by way of its members doing things 
(many of whom have organized conference stalls before). We're not aware of any 
impediments to Jonathan doing anything within the scope of the e.V. and 
consider any antagonism to be entirely unprovoked, one-sided and unnecessary.


Cheers,
Eike


On February 28, 2019 10:10:50 PM GMT+09:00, Jonathan Riddell 
 wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:06:00AM -0800, Andy B wrote:
>> However, I recommend to always assume best intentions in everything.
>> Once we deride, criticize and slander, we stop the e.V. Board’s
>> ability to help. We walk into the battle wounded. Assuming best
>> intentions will also help you remove the pressure that suspicion
>> creates. I tell that to our engineers at my work all the time. I
>think
>> it is sound advice.
>
>Given this principle does the board see that its choice to query the
>legality of me running a conference stall at FOSDEM after 15 years of
>only token involvement from the e.v. was insulting?
>
>Jonathan

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Jonathan Riddell]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:06:00AM -0800, Andy B wrote:
> However, I recommend to always assume best intentions in everything.
> Once we deride, criticize and slander, we stop the e.V. Board’s
> ability to help. We walk into the battle wounded. Assuming best
> intentions will also help you remove the pressure that suspicion
> creates. I tell that to our engineers at my work all the time. I think
> it is sound advice.

Given this principle does the board see that its choice to query the
legality of me running a conference stall at FOSDEM after 15 years of
only token involvement from the e.v. was insulting?

Jonathan

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Jonathan Riddell]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 03:06:22PM -0800, Valorie Zimmerman wrote:
> 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.

Thanks :)

In over a decade of helping promo in KDE it was always the case that
someone could come in and show willingness and competance and be given
access to the accounts needed to be a full member.  When I left the
team in 2017 and came back in 2018 this had changed and I was told I
could not get access to accounts, a decision which seems to have been
taken by the e.v. board.  We fixed this after Akademy 2018 with a
formal policy.  Will the CWG now look into why this change happened
against the norms everywhere else in KDE?

Jonathan

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Jonathan Riddell]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:06:00AM -0800, Andy B wrote:
> With that said, is there anything that we can help with in this
> particular instance? Do we feel that we are satisfied with the answers
> provided?

Why did the e.v. president block shutting down the social-media
mailing list?  The list is unused (we assume), unwanted and not the
business of the e.v. board which lists it uses.

Jonathan

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Valorie Zimmerman]

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  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  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

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Andy B]

On February 27, 2019 at 4:36:52 AM, Jonathan Riddell
(j...@jriddell.org(mailto:j...@jriddell.org)) wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:22:03AM -0700, Nate Graham wrote:
> > It's no great secret that Paul and Jonathan don't have a great working 
> > relationship, but this problem needs to be addressed openly.
>
> Au contrate, we have spent many a fine night drinking beer and whisky
> together from Edinburgh to Sarajevo. The issue I have is when we have
> structures intended to resolve issues like the e.v. board or the CWG
> and they choose not to.
>
> Jonathan

I will disagree with this point. In many cases, timing is important
and things are not “secret”. Prudence is a valuable skill too. What if
I was to mention something that I wasn’t 100% clear on, I put this on
you and you pass it on as truth? Then we have a problem, because in my
desire to keep things not a “secret” I misled you.

Many of the things the e.V. Board does have to be thought out, done
with prudence, and wait for the right time, when we have made sure
that things are for certain. I am sure our community would not
appreciate communication mistakes. This whole thread is evidence of
that. Therefore, the best possible way to tackle this is to retract,
be thoughtful, think of your audience and learn to communicate in a
timely manner.

This is is the whole point why companies, for example, have
communication departments, public relations departments, etc.

At the same time, the e.V. does not necessarily “choose” not to do
something about a situation. What is important is that members of the
community also learn to work with each other, as adults, contributing
project members. We can’t play parent at every turn. You would get
pretty annoyed at that. I got annoyed of my parents correcting my
every move, that’s why I joined this team. Just kidding!

The point is, if community members have issues, community members
should deal with those issues. If you have a problem with someone,
talk to that someone. We as the e.V. Board would probably review
situations that are too disruptive to the community and help with
those. If you want the e.V. Board to participate of a certain
situation and help, make it known. We are humans and don’t have
understanding of every little event that happens in the community 100%
of the time. We rely on you to cultivate an open communication channel
with the e.V. Board when you think it is necessary.

However, I recommend to always assume best intentions in everything.
Once we deride, criticize and slander, we stop the e.V. Board’s
ability to help. We walk into the battle wounded. Assuming best
intentions will also help you remove the pressure that suspicion
creates. I tell that to our engineers at my work all the time. I think
it is sound advice.

With that said, is there anything that we can help with in this
particular instance? Do we feel that we are satisfied with the answers
provided?

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Paul Brown]

On miércoles, 27 de febrero de 2019 12:36:35 (CET) Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:22:03AM -0700, Nate Graham wrote:
> > It's no great secret that Paul and Jonathan don't have a great working
> > relationship, but this problem needs to be addressed openly.
> Au contrate, we have spent many a fine night drinking beer and whisky
> together from Edinburgh to Sarajevo.

Agreed. And we will continue to do so. 

Paul
-- 
Promotion & Communication

www: http://kde.org
Mastodon: https://mastodon.technology/@kde
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kde/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/kdecommunity

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Jonathan Riddell]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:22:03AM -0700, Nate Graham wrote:
> It's no great secret that Paul and Jonathan don't have a great working 
> relationship, but this problem needs to be addressed openly.

Au contrate, we have spent many a fine night drinking beer and whisky
together from Edinburgh to Sarajevo.  The issue I have is when we have
structures intended to resolve issues like the e.v. board or the CWG
and they choose not to.

Jonathan

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Kenny Duffus]

On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 16:54:38 GMT Paul Brown wrote:
> > and I wasn't pinged
> 
> As for this... well, as we are being frank here: You are not the most
> discrete of people and not anybody's first choice for keeping things
> quiet.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, being forthcoming is a much appreciated quality in
> most situations involving Free Software. Your no-nonsense and upfront
> personality has made you a beacon of transparency, not only for KDE,
> but in FLOSS in general.
> 
> But those particular personality traits would've not helped with this
> task, unfortunately.
> 

One of the main uses of the dot-editors mailing list is to allow 
announcement, discussion & review of upcoming dot stories and is 
particularly suitable for when stories are "secret". This has worked very 
well for at least the decade I have been on the list

It is dot policy that before publishing the story, it should be reviewed 
by other editors. In the occasional situation where time is short and no 
replies have been made yet on the list, you would hunt people down on IRC 
to review it

Unfortunately Paul won't use it, if he had this situation would almost 
certainly have been avoided

Most importantly, I am not aware of any editors, including Jonathan, 
having ever disclosed a timed announcement on dot-editors. So Paul seems 
to have no evidence to back up his personal comments about Jonathan

> This is, to put it mildly, a misstatement. Anyone is free to join the
> Promo working group and everybody there helps decide what Promo does
> and shapes the strategy we follow.
>

Minor point, there is not a Promo Working Group. Probably just a bad 
choice of wording though

  https://ev.kde.org/workinggroups/

-- 

Kenny
(Male pronouns: he/him)

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Andy B]

On February 26, 2019 at 11:22:27 AM, Nate Graham
(n...@kde.org(mailto:n...@kde.org)) wrote:

>  On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:37:56 -0700 Christian Loosli wrote 
> > That all in mind is why I think the approach was maybe not the best one and
> > should be reconsidered for future events and articles.
> >
> > Thanks and kind regards,
> >
> > Christian
>
>
> I'm in agreement with Christian about this. Conducting this process behind 
> closed doors seems to have backfired, as evidenced by the technical problems 
> that happened anyway and the controversy and drama that we're all now 
> embroiled in. Regardless of intentions, these results should be a clear sign 
> that the process didn't work and needs to be re-examined. And it's very 
> disappointing to hear that a part of the reason for this process was 
> specifically to exclude a particular person. It's no great secret that Paul 
> and Jonathan don't have a great working relationship, but this problem needs 
> to be addressed openly. The two of you trying to work around one another, 
> occasionally writing passive aggressive emails on the mailing list is not how 
> the problem will get solved; instead it will just get bigger over time.
>
> We don't need secrecy, politicking, and personality-driven conflicts like 
> this in KDE. When there's a problem, let's handle it like adults so we can 
> all get back to the business of making the finest open-source software the 
> world has ever seen.
>
> Nate
>

Thank you all for your comments. I am sure now it is a lesson learned
and we will be more vigilant of these situations in the future. It is
part of the challenge of working with a large community across many
countries.

We all make assumptions that we feel are right but when placed in a
larger context they don’t always work the way it was intended.

I feel the community has spoken and we are in agreement. Let’s learn
from it and now move forward with the amazing work we deliver to many
people in the world.

Hugs.

Andy
KDE Board Member

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Nate Graham]

  On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:37:56 -0700 Christian Loosli  
wrote  
 > That all in mind is why I think the approach was maybe not the best one and  
 > should be reconsidered for future events and articles.  
 >  
 > Thanks and kind regards,  
 >  
 > Christian 


I'm in agreement with Christian about this. Conducting this process behind 
closed doors seems to have backfired, as evidenced by the technical problems 
that happened anyway and the controversy and drama that we're all now embroiled 
in. Regardless of intentions, these results should be a clear sign that the 
process didn't work and needs to be re-examined. And it's very disappointing to 
hear that a part of the reason for this process was specifically to exclude a 
particular person. It's no great secret that Paul and Jonathan don't have a 
great working relationship, but this problem needs to be addressed openly. The 
two of you trying to work around one another, occasionally writing passive 
aggressive emails on the mailing list is not how the problem will get solved; 
instead it will just get bigger over time.

We don't need secrecy, politicking, and personality-driven conflicts like this 
in KDE. When there's a problem, let's handle it like adults so we can all get 
back to the business of making the finest open-source software the world has 
ever seen.

Nate

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Christian Loosli]

Am Dienstag, 26. Februar 2019, 17:54:38 CET schrieb Paul Brown:

Hello Paul, 

> > The workboard item is https://phabricator.kde.org/T10477,  it wasn't
> > tagged KDE promo, it wasn't sent to the dot-editors list
> 
> This is true. However, there were good reasons for keeping things under
> wraps:
> 
> Firstly nobody wanted it to pop up on some place like Reddit, have a bunch
> of people cascade into the servers before they were ready, then moan on
> line how KDE can't get anything right and "bring back KDE 3!". Safeguarding
> KDE's reputation is one of Promo's prime directives.

well, in my opinion we managed quite the opposite, to be honest. 
Not only did we publish an article that was wrong and looked a bit 
unprofessional, personally I also think having at least some more testing 
before going public by a group would have been helpful. 

First of all, we did have performance issues when it got live. First due to a 
bug that is, as far as I am aware, now fixed. Now due to the bridge being the 
shared matrix bridge, which is under quite a load, hence having a couple of 
seconds of delay between sending messages and seeing them / message order 
mixup, which is to be solved (likely by switching over to a dedicated bridge)

That, and the few bugs reported (and some of them fixed) in the matrix kde 
support channel right after release are all things I think could have been 
ironed out before release if tested. 

In addition to that, the internal-only approach seems to have lead to a rather 
biased / sided article which, according to Lazlo, still comes across as biased 
/ sided. This is of course debateable, but I can see where he is coming from. 

So I think some "not getting it right" moaning is warranted, and the "bring 
back KDE 3" people will always be there, and everything looks a nail if all 
you have is a hammer, so no matter what we do and how we do it: it can be used 
as an argument.

That all in mind is why I think the approach was maybe not the best one and 
should be reconsidered for future events and articles. 

> Cheers

Thanks and kind regards, 

> Paul

Christian

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Laszlo Papp]

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your feedback.

I personally still have concerns with the dot article. I am not a native
English speaker, so I am happy to stand corrected if I am wrong.

But to me, it still reads with some bias towards Matrix. I would like the
article to read as Matrix is yet another choice, not a better or worse
choice than IRC. This is to respect everyone's choice for communication
equally and fairly. The everyone to their own principle.

The principle in KDE is the manifesto, I assume. That is matrix as well as
IRC agnostic. This is a good thing.

I think it would be better not to claim at large that Matrix or IRC is
better worse than the other. It is up to the individual non-paid volunteers
to decide on pair-to-pair or group basis to decide what works for them
best. In this way, I would like the article in the end of the day to read
fairly and without favoritism.

Best regards,
Laszlo Papp

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:54 PM Paul Brown  wrote:

> Hello Jonathan,
>
> > The workboard item is https://phabricator.kde.org/T10477,  it wasn't
> > tagged KDE promo, it wasn't sent to the dot-editors list
>
> This is true. However, there were good reasons for keeping things under
> wraps:
>
> Firstly nobody wanted it to pop up on some place like Reddit, have a bunch
> of
> people cascade into the servers before they were ready, then moan on line
> how
> KDE can't get anything right and "bring back KDE 3!". Safeguarding KDE's
> reputation is one of Promo's prime directives.
>
> So far, by the way, so good: no outlet and no social media platform has
> had
> anything bad to say about the decision.
>
> Getting back to being discrete until ready, the people of Matrix were
> particularly and understandably nervous about this deployment. Apart from
> the
> hit to their reputation a botched deployment would have had, they also
> have
> patrons and a disastrous, unplanned and premature release could give their
> sponsors second thoughts about supporting them again.
>
> > and I wasn't pinged
>
> As for this... well, as we are being frank here: You are not the most
> discrete
> of people and not anybody's first choice for keeping things quiet.
>
> Don't get me wrong, being forthcoming is a much appreciated quality in
> most
> situations involving Free Software. Your no-nonsense and upfront
> personality
> has made you a beacon of transparency, not only for KDE, but in FLOSS in
> general.
>
> But those particular personality traits would've not helped with this
> task,
> unfortunately.
>
> > (I'm the only active volunteer Dot editor).
>
> I'm not sure this is true, but if it is, it is probably a great time to
> ask
> for more volunteers.
>
> Hello Community Mailing List readers! Posts for Dot editors are now open!
> Requirements are good language skills. Knowledge of editing and
> copywriting a
> plus. Drop buy the Promo mailing list, IRC or Matrix room and we'll get
> you
> sorted.
>
> > 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,
>
> This is, to put it mildly, a misstatement. Anyone is free to join the
> Promo
> working group and everybody there helps decide what Promo does and shapes
> the
> strategy we follow.
>
> > when our
> > mailing lists were micro managed or when I was insulted for organising
> > a conference stall
>
> Are you sure? What did they say? What were the circumstances? I find it
> hard to
> believe it was gratuitous. Something like "Don't help us, you moron!"
> sounds
> way out of character of everybody I know in Promo. I feel more context is
> needed.
>
> But, before you answer, is it relevant to this discussion? Is it relevant
> to
> the discussion about Promo? If not, maybe start another thread or take it
> to
> CWG and see if they can solve it.
>
> > but I've only been dismissed or ignored
>
> Anything but, I'd say. When you wanted a policy for accessing social
> media,
> Promo dropped everything to make it happen. You have been active and
> contributing to Promo ever since (something which is much appreciated, by
> the
> way) and everything you have suggested has been taken into consideration
>
> ... Unless I have missed something. If this is the case, please tell what
> it
> is and we'll give it a second go.
>
> > and the
> > community at large seems happy for that to happen so I can't offer any
> > assurances of changes.
>
> Maybe that is because the community at large sees things differently from
> you.
> Maybe you are confabulating several non-related things which don't all
> reflect
> reality. Maybe if you took a step back and tried to see things from other
> people's points of view, you may see why sometimes not everything can be
> carried out exactly as you would wish. Making concessions is part of
> working
> within a community. Not everything important for you is important for
> everybody else.
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
> --
> Promotion

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Paul Brown]

Hello Jonathan,

> The workboard item is https://phabricator.kde.org/T10477,  it wasn't
> tagged KDE promo, it wasn't sent to the dot-editors list 

This is true. However, there were good reasons for keeping things under wraps:

Firstly nobody wanted it to pop up on some place like Reddit, have a bunch of 
people cascade into the servers before they were ready, then moan on line how 
KDE can't get anything right and "bring back KDE 3!". Safeguarding KDE's 
reputation is one of Promo's prime directives.

So far, by the way, so good: no outlet and no social media platform has had 
anything bad to say about the decision.

Getting back to being discrete until ready, the people of Matrix were 
particularly and understandably nervous about this deployment. Apart from the 
hit to their reputation a botched deployment would have had, they also have 
patrons and a disastrous, unplanned and premature release could give their 
sponsors second thoughts about supporting them again.

> and I wasn't pinged

As for this... well, as we are being frank here: You are not the most discrete 
of people and not anybody's first choice for keeping things quiet.

Don't get me wrong, being forthcoming is a much appreciated quality in most 
situations involving Free Software. Your no-nonsense and upfront personality 
has made you a beacon of transparency, not only for KDE, but in FLOSS in 
general.

But those particular personality traits would've not helped with this task, 
unfortunately.

> (I'm the only active volunteer Dot editor).

I'm not sure this is true, but if it is, it is probably a great time to ask 
for more volunteers.

Hello Community Mailing List readers! Posts for Dot editors are now open! 
Requirements are good language skills. Knowledge of editing and copywriting a 
plus. Drop buy the Promo mailing list, IRC or Matrix room and we'll get you 
sorted.

> 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,

This is, to put it mildly, a misstatement. Anyone is free to join the Promo 
working group and everybody there helps decide what Promo does and shapes the 
strategy we follow.

> when our
> mailing lists were micro managed or when I was insulted for organising
> a conference stall

Are you sure? What did they say? What were the circumstances? I find it hard to 
believe it was gratuitous. Something like "Don't help us, you moron!" sounds 
way out of character of everybody I know in Promo. I feel more context is 
needed.

But, before you answer, is it relevant to this discussion? Is it relevant to 
the discussion about Promo? If not, maybe start another thread or take it to 
CWG and see if they can solve it.

> but I've only been dismissed or ignored

Anything but, I'd say. When you wanted a policy for accessing social media, 
Promo dropped everything to make it happen. You have been active and 
contributing to Promo ever since (something which is much appreciated, by the 
way) and everything you have suggested has been taken into consideration

... Unless I have missed something. If this is the case, please tell what it 
is and we'll give it a second go.

> and the
> community at large seems happy for that to happen so I can't offer any
> assurances of changes.

Maybe that is because the community at large sees things differently from you. 
Maybe you are confabulating several non-related things which don't all reflect 
reality. Maybe if you took a step back and tried to see things from other 
people's points of view, you may see why sometimes not everything can be 
carried out exactly as you would wish. Making concessions is part of working 
within a community. Not everything important for you is important for 
everybody else.

Cheers

Paul
-- 
Promotion & Communication

www: http://kde.org
Mastodon: https://mastodon.technology/@kde
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kde/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/kdecommunity

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Scott Harvey]

Okay, I can see the point made by Laszlo and Helio. I retract my request
after further consideration.

I'm a part of the community, as is this discussion, and so I suppose it
should stay on the community mailing list.

Apologies for intervening... please continue.

-Scott

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 8:49 AM Laszlo Papp  wrote:

> 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  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 
>> 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  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
>>
>>

Re: 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  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  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  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
>
>

Re: 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  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  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  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
>
>

Re: 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  
wrote:
The workboard item is  ,  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 > 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

Re: 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  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
>
>

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Christian Loosli]

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

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Jonathan Riddell]

Chatting about this Dot story on the dot-editors list it seems the
story was written by the Matrix and Onboarding teams, reviewed by a
few people, but none who happened to pick up the concerns noted when
it was published.  The story was amended when those concerns were
raised. Apologies for the controversy.

Jonathan

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Ben Cooksley]

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 5:10 AM Eike Hein  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/21/19 8:46 PM, Filipe Saraiva wrote:
> > 2. What are the reasons to use a server owned by a company, not by us? I
> > don't want to start a flamewar, just know the reasons and motivations.
>
> Hosting a Matrix server currently requires a quite beefy box, and is
> also somewhat maintenance-intensive. I'll let the Sysadmin team speak
> for itself, but it's my understanding it's generally not opposed to
> making use of hosted services, if they're in principle self-hostable and
> free software. Going by the Sysadmin report at Akademy and the things
> currently in flight, especially at the current time I would imagine it's
> welcome not to increase the burden on our sysadmins.

We are extremely busy currently yes.

Over the past 6 weeks we have migrated a large number of sites and
services to newer machines with minimal downtime (and in many cases,
we did hot migrations so there was no user visible downtime). We still
have quite a some bits and pieces left to migrate from the older
machines which we're decommissioning, but most of it is completed at
this stage.

Once that's completed chances are our focus will switch to other areas
of the infrastructure that need work, so there isn't likely to be much
free people time for many months yet.
(and i've yet to make plans to deal with the final Ubuntu 14.04 system
- the above migrations eliminated two of the three ones we had left at
the start of this year)

>
> In addition to getting the infrastructure to run it on (some of "our"
> servers are donated too, mind you) this donation by Matrix also includes
> their support - it's basically a commercial hosting service we're
> currently getting for free. During the launch days, several Matrix staff
> were engaged in giving KDErs chat support and doing hotfixe on the setup.
>
> Of course part of the requirements for doing this was to make sure that
> sysadmin has access to pull full backups, so that if need be, we can
> move the service somewhere else in the future. In this sense it's quite
> similar to the agreement KDE e.V. has with Pling to run store.kde.org.
>
> We've also been impressed that Matrix have stayed true to their plans
> laid out some years ago, of setting up a foundation to turn ownership of
> the Matrix specs over to. This appears in the final stages. Plus, if you
> followed the developments in the Matrix world, one of the first things
> they did after working their way out of a funding crisis a year or two
> ago was to put work into those specs again. Those actions leave at least
> me with the necessary degree of trust in them to stay in tune with KDE's
> values. This is, after all, also part of what makes Matrix compelling
> for KDE in the first place, and working together seems mutually beneficial.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Eike

Thanks,
Ben

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Eike Hein]

On 2/21/19 8:46 PM, Filipe Saraiva wrote:

2. What are the reasons to use a server owned by a company, not by us? I
don't want to start a flamewar, just know the reasons and motivations.


Hosting a Matrix server currently requires a quite beefy box, and is 
also somewhat maintenance-intensive. I'll let the Sysadmin team speak 
for itself, but it's my understanding it's generally not opposed to 
making use of hosted services, if they're in principle self-hostable and 
free software. Going by the Sysadmin report at Akademy and the things 
currently in flight, especially at the current time I would imagine it's 
welcome not to increase the burden on our sysadmins.


In addition to getting the infrastructure to run it on (some of "our" 
servers are donated too, mind you) this donation by Matrix also includes 
their support - it's basically a commercial hosting service we're 
currently getting for free. During the launch days, several Matrix staff 
were engaged in giving KDErs chat support and doing hotfixe on the setup.


Of course part of the requirements for doing this was to make sure that 
sysadmin has access to pull full backups, so that if need be, we can 
move the service somewhere else in the future. In this sense it's quite 
similar to the agreement KDE e.V. has with Pling to run store.kde.org.


We've also been impressed that Matrix have stayed true to their plans 
laid out some years ago, of setting up a foundation to turn ownership of 
the Matrix specs over to. This appears in the final stages. Plus, if you 
followed the developments in the Matrix world, one of the first things 
they did after working their way out of a funding crisis a year or two 
ago was to put work into those specs again. Those actions leave at least 
me with the necessary degree of trust in them to stay in tune with KDE's 
values. This is, after all, also part of what makes Matrix compelling 
for KDE in the first place, and working together seems mutually beneficial.



Cheers,
Eike

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Ben Cooksley]

On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 8:54 AM Filipe Saraiva  wrote:
>
> Em 20/02/2019 09:36, Paul Brown escreveu:
> > So please head over to https://webchat.kde.org (or matrix.kde.org via any
> > other Matrix client!), grab an account and join #kde:kde.org.  For more
> > information, check out our Matrix wiki page which includes details on how to
> > configure desktop clients (https://community.kde.org/Matrix).
> >
>
> Nice, congratulations kommunity!
>
> Some questions:
>
> 1. Do the created accounts has a @username:kde.org address? Or
> @username:kde.modular.im?

My understanding is that they follow the form @username:kde.org.

>
> 2. What are the reasons to use a server owned by a company, not by us? I
> don't want to start a flamewar, just know the reasons and motivations.
>
> 3. For now is there any plan for our XMPP infrastructure or nothing related?

There are no plans to impact on XMPP infrastructure at this time.

We're unlikely to make any improvements for XMPP in terms of our
infrastructure as it is more likely to be wound down in the next few
years (we've already disabled registrations due to abuse, any new
registrations require a request to Sysadmin)

>
> Thank you!
>
> --
> Filipe Saraiva
> http://filipesaraiva.info/

Regards,
Ben

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Filipe Saraiva]

Em 20/02/2019 09:36, Paul Brown escreveu:
> So please head over to https://webchat.kde.org (or matrix.kde.org via any 
> other Matrix client!), grab an account and join #kde:kde.org.  For more 
> information, check out our Matrix wiki page which includes details on how to 
> configure desktop clients (https://community.kde.org/Matrix).
> 

Nice, congratulations kommunity!

Some questions:

1. Do the created accounts has a @username:kde.org address? Or
@username:kde.modular.im?

2. What are the reasons to use a server owned by a company, not by us? I
don't want to start a flamewar, just know the reasons and motivations.

3. For now is there any plan for our XMPP infrastructure or nothing related?

Thank you!

-- 
Filipe Saraiva
http://filipesaraiva.info/

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Joseph Wenninger]

Hi!
I think the public dot.kde.org article was a little bit premature, registration 
does not work because of timeouts and/or CORS errors, ...
Best regards
Joseph Wenninger

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 20.02.2019 um 15:37 schrieb Laszlo Papp :
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 2:30 PM Hans Tovetjärn  wrote:
>> On onsdag 20 februari 2019 kl. 15:07:09 CET Agustin Benito (toscalix) wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > 
>> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 1:52 PM Hans Tovetjärn  
>> wrote:
>> > > On onsdag 20 februari 2019 kl. 13:36:37 CET Paul Brown wrote:
>> > > > Hi all,
>> > > > 
>> > > > KDE has been looking for a better way of chatting and live-sharing of
>> > > > information for several years now. IRC has been a good solution for a
>> > > > long
>> > > > time, but has centralized servers KDE cannot control, it is also
>> > > > insecure
>> > > 
>> > > In what way? You can connect and authenticate via TSL/SSL. If you bridge
>> > > Matrix rooms and IRC channels, I don't think end-to-end encryption will
>> > > work, so that doesn't matter anyway.
>> > 
>> > from what I see in IRC/telegram promo related channels, there are
>> > already discussions to be accurate when referring to IRC. It wouldn't
>> > surprise me if corrections are on their way.
>> > 
>> > Best Regards
>> > 
>> > Agustin
>> 
>> Yes. The original text:
>> 
>> "IRC has been a good solution for a long time, but it has centralized 
>> servers 
>> KDE cannot control. It is also insecure and lacks features users have come 
>> to 
>> expect from more modern IM services."
>> 
>> ...has been replaced with:
>> 
>> "IRC has been a good solution for a long time, but our channels are 
>> currently 
>> on servers KDE cannot control. It also lacks features users have come to 
>> expect from more modern IM services."
> 
> 1. Why does KDE need to control these channels?
> 
> 2. This is still not a selling point for Matrix against IRC to be honest. 
> Because one can set up an IRC server just as well as a Matrix server. So, I 
> would not mention this in the article.
> 
> I have the gut feeling that what KDE can only fairly claim is that some 
> people prefer Matrix over IRC. We are all different and that is fine. I would 
> not even use the term "better" or "worse" for either. It is just different. 
> That is all. It is ok to be different though.
> 
>> 
>> The article is alright now.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>> Hans Tovetjärn (totte)
>> to...@chakralinux.org
>> 0x9731B8FCED15437F

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Agustin Benito (toscalix)]

Hi Lazlo,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:37 PM Laszlo Papp  wrote:

> 1. Why does KDE need to control these channels?
>
> 2. This is still not a selling point for Matrix against IRC to be honest. 
> Because one can set up an IRC server just as well as a Matrix server. So, I 
> would not mention this in the article.
>
> I have the gut feeling that what KDE can only fairly claim is that some 
> people prefer Matrix over IRC. We are all different > and that is fine. I 
> would not even use the term "better" or "worse" for either. It is just 
> different. That is all. It is ok to be
> different though.

this is the spirit behind the decision. To open up KDE to new Open
Source communication channels that follow the spirit behind the
community. The statements made around IRC, being at the beginning of
the message, blur this message, but I think it is there when refers to
promoting/using both, IRC and Matrix.


Best Regards


Agustin Benito (toscalix)
KDE eV member
Profile: http://www.toscalix.com

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Hans Tovetjärn]

On onsdag 20 februari 2019 kl. 15:37:32 CET Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > "IRC has been a good solution for a long time, but our channels are
> > currently
> > on servers KDE cannot control. It also lacks features users have come to
> > expect from more modern IM services."
> 
> 1. Why does KDE need to control these channels?
> 
> 2. This is still not a selling point for Matrix against IRC to be honest.
> Because one can set up an IRC server just as well as a Matrix server. So, I
> would not mention this in the article.
> 
> I have the gut feeling that what KDE can only fairly claim is that some
> people prefer Matrix over IRC. We are all different and that is fine. I
> would not even use the term "better" or "worse" for either. It is just
> different. That is all. It is ok to be different though.

Fair enough, the server used to host webchat.kde.org is supplied by 
www.modular.im, so I don't know if it is, strictly speaking, controlled by KDE 
anyway, any more than the servers of Freenode are.

I like both IRC (Freenode, at least) and Matrix and would leave it at that. 
I'm sure that there has been a discussion prior to the decision made, where 
the pros and cons of each were presented.

-- 
Best regards,
Hans Tovetjärn (totte)
to...@chakralinux.org
0x9731B8FCED15437F

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Laszlo Papp]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 2:30 PM Hans Tovetjärn 
wrote:

> On onsdag 20 februari 2019 kl. 15:07:09 CET Agustin Benito (toscalix)
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 1:52 PM Hans Tovetjärn 
> wrote:
> > > On onsdag 20 februari 2019 kl. 13:36:37 CET Paul Brown wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > KDE has been looking for a better way of chatting and live-sharing of
> > > > information for several years now. IRC has been a good solution for a
> > > > long
> > > > time, but has centralized servers KDE cannot control, it is also
> > > > insecure
> > >
> > > In what way? You can connect and authenticate via TSL/SSL. If you
> bridge
> > > Matrix rooms and IRC channels, I don't think end-to-end encryption will
> > > work, so that doesn't matter anyway.
> >
> > from what I see in IRC/telegram promo related channels, there are
> > already discussions to be accurate when referring to IRC. It wouldn't
> > surprise me if corrections are on their way.
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Agustin
>
> Yes. The original text:
>
> "IRC has been a good solution for a long time, but it has centralized
> servers
> KDE cannot control. It is also insecure and lacks features users have come
> to
> expect from more modern IM services."
>
> ...has been replaced with:
>
> "IRC has been a good solution for a long time, but our channels are
> currently
> on servers KDE cannot control. It also lacks features users have come to
> expect from more modern IM services."
>

1. Why does KDE need to control these channels?

2. This is still not a selling point for Matrix against IRC to be honest.
Because one can set up an IRC server just as well as a Matrix server. So, I
would not mention this in the article.

I have the gut feeling that what KDE can only fairly claim is that some
people prefer Matrix over IRC. We are all different and that is fine. I
would not even use the term "better" or "worse" for either. It is just
different. That is all. It is ok to be different though.


> The article is alright now.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Hans Tovetjärn (totte)
> to...@chakralinux.org
> 0x9731B8FCED15437F

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Hans Tovetjärn]

On onsdag 20 februari 2019 kl. 15:07:09 CET Agustin Benito (toscalix) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 1:52 PM Hans Tovetjärn  
wrote:
> > On onsdag 20 februari 2019 kl. 13:36:37 CET Paul Brown wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > KDE has been looking for a better way of chatting and live-sharing of
> > > information for several years now. IRC has been a good solution for a
> > > long
> > > time, but has centralized servers KDE cannot control, it is also
> > > insecure
> > 
> > In what way? You can connect and authenticate via TSL/SSL. If you bridge
> > Matrix rooms and IRC channels, I don't think end-to-end encryption will
> > work, so that doesn't matter anyway.
> 
> from what I see in IRC/telegram promo related channels, there are
> already discussions to be accurate when referring to IRC. It wouldn't
> surprise me if corrections are on their way.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Agustin

Yes. The original text:

"IRC has been a good solution for a long time, but it has centralized servers 
KDE cannot control. It is also insecure and lacks features users have come to 
expect from more modern IM services."

...has been replaced with:

"IRC has been a good solution for a long time, but our channels are currently 
on servers KDE cannot control. It also lacks features users have come to 
expect from more modern IM services."

The article is alright now.

-- 
Best regards,
Hans Tovetjärn (totte)
to...@chakralinux.org
0x9731B8FCED15437F

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Agustin Benito (toscalix)]

Hi,


On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 1:52 PM Hans Tovetjärn  wrote:
>
> On onsdag 20 februari 2019 kl. 13:36:37 CET Paul Brown wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > KDE has been looking for a better way of chatting and live-sharing of
> > information for several years now. IRC has been a good solution for a long
> > time, but has centralized servers KDE cannot control, it is also insecure
>
> In what way? You can connect and authenticate via TSL/SSL. If you bridge
> Matrix rooms and IRC channels, I don't think end-to-end encryption will work,
> so that doesn't matter anyway.

from what I see in IRC/telegram promo related channels, there are
already discussions to be accurate when referring to IRC. It wouldn't
surprise me if corrections are on their way.

Best Regards

Agustin

Re: Don't shoot the messenger (was Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure)

[Hans Tovetjärn]

On onsdag 20 februari 2019 kl. 14:06:26 CET Paul Brown wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> What the subject says. Please address your concerns to the people who made
> the decision and passed down the bullet points of the text.
> 
> I will not be responding to any messages in this thread, since it is not my
> place.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Paul

Neither your initial e-mail, nor the article posted on dot.kde.org, seems to 
explain who made the decision and "passed down the bullet points of the text".

-- 
Best regards,
Hans Tovetjärn (totte)
to...@chakralinux.org
0x9731B8FCED15437F

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Don't shoot the messenger (was Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure)

[Christian Loosli]

Hello Paul, 

in this case please do let me know who passed that text through, because it is 
simply wrong and misleading, and I'm not terribly happy with that being on the 
dot. It doesn't look terribly good when we spread wrong information about a 
product we still actively use. 

And I also wonder why this text was (at least I assume) not given to people 
familiar with the technology to proof-read it, as this should have been 
immediately noticed, as you can see from the initial replies. 

tl;dr: personally I'd like that text to be pulled and corrected, as right now 
we spread wrong information about a product we and many others still use. 
I can gladly get in touch with whoever is in charge of that, but I don't know 
who is.

Kind regards, 

Christian

Am Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2019, 14:06:26 CET schrieb Paul Brown:
> Dear all,
> 
> What the subject says. Please address your concerns to the people who made
> the decision and passed down the bullet points of the text.
> 
> I will not be responding to any messages in this thread, since it is not my
> place.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Paul

Don't shoot the messenger (was Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure)

[Paul Brown]

Dear all,

What the subject says. Please address your concerns to the people who made the 
decision and passed down the bullet points of the text.

I will not be responding to any messages in this thread, since it is not my 
place.

Cheers

Paul
-- 
Promotion & Communication

www: http://kde.org
Mastodon: https://mastodon.technology/@kde
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kde/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/kdecommunity

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Hans Tovetjärn]

On onsdag 20 februari 2019 kl. 13:36:37 CET Paul Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> KDE has been looking for a better way of chatting and live-sharing of
> information for several years now. IRC has been a good solution for a long
> time, but has centralized servers KDE cannot control, it is also insecure

In what way? You can connect and authenticate via TSL/SSL. If you bridge 
Matrix rooms and IRC channels, I don't think end-to-end encryption will work, 
so that doesn't matter anyway.

-- 
Best regards,
Hans Tovetjärn (totte)
to...@chakralinux.org
0x9731B8FCED15437F

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Laszlo Papp]

I have the same concerns as Christian.

1. We used to run internal Nokia IRC servers professionally for a long
time, so does Mozilla, etc.

2. I also do not understand the insecure claims.

3. As a matter of personal preference, I like some non-modern features
better than modern.

I am not against having Matrix as well in communities like this, but if the
uninitiated reads this about IRC, they are badly mislead.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 12:43 PM Christian Loosli  wrote:

> Am Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2019, 13:36:37 CET schrieb Paul Brown:
> > Hi all,
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> > KDE has been looking for a better way of chatting and live-sharing of
> > information for several years now. IRC has been a good solution for a
> long
> > time, but has centralized servers KDE cannot control, it is also insecure
>
> beg your pardon? Neither is true. IRC is decentralized, and whilst KDE has
> no
> control over the freenode servers (obviously), it would have been free to
> have
> their own. From what I gather the KDE matrix instance is sponsored and not
> full control either.
>
> I'd also like to know how IRC is "insecure", in general and also in
> contrast
> to Matrix. Otherwise I kindly ask you to not throw such accusations
> without
> further explanation around.
>
> > • Unlike IRC, Matrix is an entirely decentralised public network and
> > anyone can run a server.
>
> Again: that is simply wrong. IRC is decentralized, the protocol is
> entirely
> open and various ircds and services are open source, and everybody is able
> to
> run their own network.
>
> > So please head over to https://webchat.kde.org (or matrix.kde.org via
> any
> > other Matrix client!), grab an account and join #kde:kde.org.  For more
> > information, check out our Matrix wiki page which includes details on
> how to
> > configure desktop clients (https://community.kde.org/Matrix).
>
> > Let us know how you get on!
>
> Currently testing, I have > 1 minute loading times on searching and
> joining
> channels, and communicating with the appservice to change the IRC side
> nick or
> directly joining unlisted channels does not work (unfortunately no error
> message at all, so I can provide nothing to debug.
>
> > Cheers
> >
> > Paul
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Christian
>
>
>
>
>

Re: KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Christian Loosli]

Am Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2019, 13:36:37 CET schrieb Paul Brown:
> Hi all,

Hi Paul, 

> KDE has been looking for a better way of chatting and live-sharing of
> information for several years now. IRC has been a good solution for a long
> time, but has centralized servers KDE cannot control, it is also insecure

beg your pardon? Neither is true. IRC is decentralized, and whilst KDE has no 
control over the freenode servers (obviously), it would have been free to have 
their own. From what I gather the KDE matrix instance is sponsored and not 
full control either.

I'd also like to know how IRC is "insecure", in general and also in contrast 
to Matrix. Otherwise I kindly ask you to not throw such accusations without 
further explanation around.

> • Unlike IRC, Matrix is an entirely decentralised public network and
> anyone can run a server. 

Again: that is simply wrong. IRC is decentralized, the protocol is entirely 
open and various ircds and services are open source, and everybody is able to 
run their own network. 

> So please head over to https://webchat.kde.org (or matrix.kde.org via any
> other Matrix client!), grab an account and join #kde:kde.org.  For more
> information, check out our Matrix wiki page which includes details on how to
> configure desktop clients (https://community.kde.org/Matrix).

> Let us know how you get on!

Currently testing, I have > 1 minute loading times on searching and joining 
channels, and communicating with the appservice to change the IRC side nick or 
directly joining unlisted channels does not work (unfortunately no error 
message at all, so I can provide nothing to debug.

> Cheers
> 
> Paul

Kind regards, 

Christian

KDE now has its own Matrix infrastructure

[Paul Brown]

Hi all,

KDE has been looking for a better way of chatting and live-sharing of 
information for several years now. IRC has been a good solution for a long 
time, but has centralized servers KDE cannot control, it is also insecure and 
lacks features users have come to expect from more modern IM services. Other 
alternatives, such as Telegram, Slack and Discord, although feature-rich, are 
centralised and built around closed source technologies and offer even less 
control than IRC. This does not sit very well with KDE's principles that 
require we use and support Free Software-based technologies.

That is why we are collaborating with Matrix to set up and deploy a KDE's own 
Matrix infrastructure.  Matrix is an open protocol and network for 
decentralised communication, backed by an open standard and open source 
reference implementations for servers, clients, client SDKs, bridges, bots and 
more.  It provides all the features you’d expect from a modern chat system: 
infinite scrollback, file transfer, typing notifications, read receipts, 
presence, search, push notifications, stickers, VoIP calling and conferencing, 
etc.  It even provides end-to-end encryption (based on Signal’s double ratchet 
algorithm) for when you want some privacy.

https://dot.kde.org/2019/02/20/kde-adding-matrix-its-im-framework

All the existing rooms on Matrix (and their counterparts on IRC, Telegram and 
elsewhere) continue to exist. This update provides a dedicated server for KDE 
users to access them using names like #kde:kde.org.

You can try KDE's Matrix service right now by checking out https://
webchat.kde.org or installing a Matrix client like Riot and connecting to the 
matrix.kde.org server.

Some aspects of Matrix which make it particularly suitable for KDE are:

• Transparent bridging to IRC (as well as XMPP and many other chat 
platforms like Slack, Discord, Telegram, etc).  This means that people who 
want to use IRC can keep doing so today.  To be clear: our Freenode IRC 
channels are here to stay. If you access them via Matrix rather than IRC you 
will get nice things like code formatting, rich messages, typing notifications, 
presence, read receipts etc. from other Matrix users - but the core 
conversation is shared with IRC.  If it helps, you can almost think of Matrix 
as being a big decentralised IRC bouncer. You can join anywhere on Freenode by 
looking in the room directory or typing /join #freenode_#channel:matrix.org - 
or for that matter Moznet, GIMPnet, and many others.

• Unlike IRC, Matrix is an entirely decentralised public network and 
anyone can run a server.  We’re providing one at https://kde.modular.im 
(kindly supplied by https://modular.im), but anyone can connect via their own 
servers.  This is because chat-rooms in Matrix are replicated across all the 
servers which participate in them (very similarly to how a git repository is 
cloned across all contributors), which means the rooms are not trapped on any 
single server or chat provider.  If the kde.modular.im server goes down, the 
rooms continue without disruption until it comes back.  In other words, 
ownership of the rooms is shared equally by all their participants - not by a 
central chat server or service.

• As an open standard, Matrix is incredibly developer friendly (sending or 
receiving a message is literally a single HTTP hit!) and anyone can write 
their own clients, bots, bridges or servers and participate in the system. The 
flagship client today is Riot (which also powers https://webchat.kde.org), but 
there are also native Qt clients being developed such as Quaternion, Nheko, 
and Spectral for those who want something more KDE-friendly. Konversation is 
also planning Matrix support!

So please head over to https://webchat.kde.org (or matrix.kde.org via any 
other Matrix client!), grab an account and join #kde:kde.org.  For more 
information, check out our Matrix wiki page which includes details on how to 
configure desktop clients (https://community.kde.org/Matrix).

Let us know how you get on!

Cheers

Paul
-- 
Promotion & Communication

www: http://kde.org
Mastodon: https://mastodon.technology/@kde
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kde/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/kdecommunity