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 <lp...@kde.org> 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 <sc...@spharvey.me> wrote: > >> Jonathan, et al - >> >> Can I respectfully ask that this debate/dispute be moved elsewhere? >> >> I've been on hiatus from my role as a minor KDE contibutor for a few >> months. It's not encouraging to resume paying attention only to find >> another argument in progress. >> >> I suppose it could be argued that this maillist is intended for community >> discussion and that this is indeed a community issue... I just don't feel >> it's good for morale (mine, at least). >> >> >> -Scott (sharvey) >> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:34 AM, Jonathan Riddell <j...@jriddell.org> >> wrote: >> >> The workboard item is https://phabricator.kde.org/T10477 , it wasn't >> tagged KDE promo, it wasn't sent to the dot-editors list and I wasn't >> pinged (I'm the only active volunteer Dot editor). I'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 <k...@fuchsnet.ch> wrote: >> >> Hi Jonathan, thanks for the wrap-up. I am less interested in pointing >> blame, and more interested in - how this could have happened - what our >> learnings are so this doesn't happen again in the future? It still is >> unclear to me how non-true accusations without further explanation made it >> into the article. Even for people who are not familiar with the subject, >> this imho should never happen. If you are not sure, you don't throw around >> accusations of things being insecure. It bothers me even more that there is >> a lengthy discussion on the subject (and a follow up survey and result) >> available to the people who participated in this, the article looked to me >> like this discussion, survey and result (that we did put a lot of time and >> effort in) were ignored. From what I gathered it even was given to the >> right people to proof-read, but the article was released without waiting >> for a reply. How can that happen, and why was it so urgent to push that >> article out? So to avoid this in the future, I'd like to see us following a >> process that does involved proof-reading by people familiar with the >> subject, so we look as professional as we as KDE should be by now, and >> usually are. As a last but not least, I'm also not terribly happy when >> people involved were also the ones still, in public, making statements >> against one of the technologies we decided to use and support, stating we >> should abandon them. Together with the flawed article this doesn't look >> good. I'd love to see people at least try to not let their personal views >> bias them too much, especially not when a group decision was made. I have >> my personal views and preferences on this too, but I try my best to accept >> the decision taken and support it. Thanks and kind regards, Christian >> >>