Concerns regarding communication and thoroughness

[Bux]

Thanks for speaking on the behalf of the team Chris, it’s really appreciated. Just to add a little more, but not much.

Mighty thank you for the breakdown and the candidness, it’s always appreciated, and while it’s not and cannot be done with the context from a small team’s point of view, there is of course always another perspective to see and that’s of value.

As far as the team goes, there is absolutely a compromise that has to be made on hours in day and how they are spent, and we agreed (as a team), that the important thing to do was to get out of the way as much as possible, as fast as possible by running after the aspects we (and you know) to be critical to address and resolve. The idea that there a person that is required or that there’s some essential person for a feedback loop or ingestion of thoughts, is counter to all David was trying to do in the first place - no central point of failure or contention.

As Chris said there is now a rigorous process being attached to updates, Victor has come on board as a QA (although he has skills well beyond as well that we will use for sure!). MaidSafe has 18 team members (on various different agreements); 12 of these are engineers/developers, 4 are marketing and/or community (inc IF) focused, and 2 are performance, finance and operations focused. We do have a product lead in Nic, but his focus has been on the team and the way work is flowing in and being handled - working on the right things, at the right time, for the right reasons etc.

I agree as we go forward we need to think better on how we open up things like PRs submissions/builds, trouble shooting and the connectivity between all - I hope the nature of the conversation will also be able to evolve as we have more of a running and building live something mentality, rather than planning and investigating (not saying there is anything wrong with the latter but it’s going to be brilliant to have it fully connected up to the former).

While I appreciate it sits outside of technical debate and content, you have my commitment from a MaidSafe pov that we will look at the communications and team inputs into and from these - as think there are some clear gaps and also some quicks wins.

[Bux]

Building on the above I think the gap is something we can bridge, the way the team see the forum (a hugely valuable place) remains unchanged. @Nic_Dorman let’s pick this open issue up in chats this week (see thread above).

This screenshot is from this am.

[happybeing]

Good to see you here @Bux. I hope issues with comms and clarity can improve going forward. Knowing this community well, I’m confident the relationship can recover.

The test for me will be whether Autonomi continue to use us without understanding who we are and what our values really are, or return to working with us as partners. The value of that - in practical terms - is IMO more than the ‘cost’.

Speaking of partners, have any begun significant uploading and if so can you give any ideas of total so far and ongoing rates?

BTW regardless of it’s perceived flaws, IF is already a big success IMO. I can think of several ways but my phone isn’t going to let me expand on that for now.

EDIT: at laptop so early take on IF:
At this point IF has:

• drawn a lot of lurking developers into the open, which is fantastic to see
• highlighted some really solid projects. There’s a question about whether the best will make through the first vote, but I am confident good projects will get support elsewhere once folk understand them even if the voting doesn’t work for all of them.
• and of course created some meaty marketing. I’ve even boosted some of it on Mastodon (though not so much anything AI or blockchain as that will go down like… well you know outside the blockchain/AI bubbles). We await the results of that but the point is Autonomi do at least have something that will get more people to take a look.