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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 > >
