Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#21

Post by pierat »

joshsimmons wrote: post #18
Zetobal wrote: post #12

I am following the thread for years now and their financials were always a shitshow. I believe they never released anything on time or without the community begging for it. Well, except some fluff blog post at the end of the year without real data. I love Matrix but it's a fishy foundation. With this and Element not releasing server code under apache 2 anymore, it looks more and more like Element is going for entshit…

I get that we're operating in a low trust environment, and you don't yet have any reason to trust me. I will say this: I'm not here to carry water for past performance. I _am_ here to build the foundation into the organization the community deserves, and I have a track record when it comes to making organizations more responsive to the communities they serve. Not only will I respond to the questions and concerns, I a…

Put up (the financials and data), or shut up.

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#22

Post by grey_earthling »

danShumway wrote: post #15
makomk wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The server-side Matrix code developed by Element is no longer going to be released under the Apache 2 license. It's going to be dual-licensed AGPL/proprietary from now on and released from Element's own GitHub repositories with a CLA requiring copyright assignment to Element so they can use it in the proprietary version, and the foundation is dropping all development on the Apache 2 version since they're not interest…

What's interesting about this is that if the CLA didn't exist I would entirely support this move. The AGPL is (imo) a better license for a keeping a hosted project public and Open, it's good for things being built on top of Matrix's server implementation to be openly licensed. And the company is right that the Apache 2 license would not prevent them from taking the code in a proprietary direction later; Apache 2 allo…

Element requiring a CLA has only 1 practical effect: Element are effectively saying that in their repo of Synapse/Dendrite, they won't integrate any copyleft code they can't relicense.

Other organisations could still choose to maintain a repo of Synapse/Dendrite that integrates any AGPL code, including all code released by Element.

That might be a better upstream than Element! — but it would take work. For it to happen, someone would need to do and/or fund that work.

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#23

Post by alohapersona3 »

grey_earthling wrote: post #22
danShumway wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's interesting about this is that if the CLA didn't exist I would entirely support this move. The AGPL is (imo) a better license for a keeping a hosted project public and Open, it's good for things being built on top of Matrix's server implementation to be openly licensed. And the company is right that the Apache 2 license would not prevent them from taking the code in a proprietary direction later; Apache 2 allo…

Element requiring a CLA has only 1 practical effect: Element are effectively saying that in their repo of Synapse/Dendrite, they won't integrate any copyleft code they can't relicense. Other organisations could still choose to maintain a repo of Synapse/Dendrite that integrates any AGPL code, including all code released by Element. That might be a better upstream than Element! — but it would take work. For it to happ…

If next there is "Synapse Pro" that is proprietary and sold by Element and includes features not present in the open source version of Synapse but relevant to company or government use of Matrix, the AGPL-only version of Synapse will lack those features. This will hinder companies that (potentially) require "Synapse Pro"-features from contributing to the AGPL-only version of Synapse. We have seen this happen before.

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#24

Post by tentacleuno »

vilunov wrote: post #16
Zetobal wrote: post #12

I am following the thread for years now and their financials were always a shitshow. I believe they never released anything on time or without the community begging for it. Well, except some fluff blog post at the end of the year without real data. I love Matrix but it's a fishy foundation. With this and Element not releasing server code under apache 2 anymore, it looks more and more like Element is going for entshit…

> Well, Josh is here so he will again start to deflect for some weeks and hope everyone will just forget about it until the next merry go round This has been my experience with how Matrix handles critique in general, e.g. the response to "why not matrix?" which left me disappointed. Looking at this, and also at low quality of the reference clients and servers, over-engineered protocols and the poor UX in general it d…

Why not Matrix? Here's one reason: it has incredibly hard-to-debug edge cases, and plenty of bugs. One of my favourites is the one where people are kicked out of your room at random, which was reported a year ago[0]. It wasn't fixed, however, because the head of the Matrix foundation (Matthew) didn't seem to like the issue being posted on Twitter.

The reporter took down the tweet, and it's still now effectively abandoned (despite it still being an issue; I've spoken to quite a few mods about it). This is honestly really disappointing behaviour from a platform owner.

[0]: https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/issues/14481

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#25

Post by ajdude »

joshsimmons wrote: post #8

Thanks for the tag on the GitHub issue and for being a persistent advocate for transparency. Transparency is something we should expect from any open source foundation, and I am committed to delivering on that as the Foundation's first Managing Director. That said, it is the weekend :-) I'm happy to address all of the concerns and questions, and you'll hear more from me tomorrow – both here and on GitHub.

I'm very curious to see this point addressed:

> According to the statement, the book value of cryptocurrency assets did not change between Oct 31, 2021 and Oct 31, 2022. This is questionable, to say it mild, given that there have been incoming cryptocurrency transactions publicly visible on the respective published blockchain addresses of The Matrix.org Foundation.

https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec/issues/571#issueco...

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#26

Post by Arathorn »

tentacleuno wrote: post #24
vilunov wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, Josh is here so he will again start to deflect for some weeks and hope everyone will just forget about it until the next merry go round This has been my experience with how Matrix handles critique in general, e.g. the response to "why not matrix?" which left me disappointed. Looking at this, and also at low quality of the reference clients and servers, over-engineered protocols and the poor UX in general it d…

Why not Matrix? Here's one reason: it has incredibly hard-to-debug edge cases, and plenty of bugs. One of my favourites is the one where people are kicked out of your room at random, which was reported a year ago[0]. It wasn't fixed, however, because the head of the Matrix foundation (Matthew) didn't seem to like the issue being posted on Twitter. The reporter took down the tweet, and it's still now effectively aband…

wow, the pile-on is real tonight.

I suggested that GrapheneOS stopped enumerating potential ways to attack Matrix rooms on Twitter if they actually wanted to discourage attacks.

Meanwhile, that issue has not remotely been abandoned, and has continued to be worked on in private (given the risk it might have security impact) - although as it's a rare edge case without a known security impact, it's competing with a lot of the other work we do to support Matrix, hence slow progress; especially with highly constrained funding.

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#27

Post by meepmorp »

Arathorn wrote: post #26
tentacleuno wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not Matrix? Here's one reason: it has incredibly hard-to-debug edge cases, and plenty of bugs. One of my favourites is the one where people are kicked out of your room at random, which was reported a year ago[0]. It wasn't fixed, however, because the head of the Matrix foundation (Matthew) didn't seem to like the issue being posted on Twitter. The reporter took down the tweet, and it's still now effectively aband…

wow, the pile-on is real tonight. I suggested that GrapheneOS stopped enumerating potential ways to attack Matrix rooms on Twitter if they actually wanted to discourage attacks. Meanwhile, that issue has not remotely been abandoned, and has continued to be worked on in private (given the risk it might have security impact) - although as it's a rare edge case without a known security impact, it's competing with a lot…

> wow, the pile-on is real tonight.

I know it's incredibly hard to not take it personally when people call your baby ugly, but you're not helping things by being defensive. People seem to have issues with how you (as a company) handle bugs and criticism, and while it may not seem fair or accurate, at very least, it's likely that your company's responses contribute to the perception.

If nothing else, it points out a communication problem.

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#28

Post by tentacleuno »

Arathorn wrote: post #26
tentacleuno wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not Matrix? Here's one reason: it has incredibly hard-to-debug edge cases, and plenty of bugs. One of my favourites is the one where people are kicked out of your room at random, which was reported a year ago[0]. It wasn't fixed, however, because the head of the Matrix foundation (Matthew) didn't seem to like the issue being posted on Twitter. The reporter took down the tweet, and it's still now effectively aband…

wow, the pile-on is real tonight. I suggested that GrapheneOS stopped enumerating potential ways to attack Matrix rooms on Twitter if they actually wanted to discourage attacks. Meanwhile, that issue has not remotely been abandoned, and has continued to be worked on in private (given the risk it might have security impact) - although as it's a rare edge case without a known security impact, it's competing with a lot…

> wow, the pile-on is real tonight.

My intent isn't to "pile-on"; it's to provide insight into the issues people have with Matrix. I understand that it's your creation, but judging by this and the GitHub thread, it seems like you get quite defensive in these situations. Ultimately, these are valid criticisms of the platform; people aren't personally attacking you or the project. Personally I commend what you've created.

> I suggested that GrapheneOS stopped enumerating potential ways to attack Matrix rooms on Twitter if they actually wanted to discourage attacks.

Well, the issue was posted above. The Graphene guy posted it on Twitter, and by doing so you claimed he "slagged [you] off"[0].

> Meanwhile, that issue has not remotely been abandoned, and has continued to be worked on in private (given the risk it might have security impact) - although as it's a rare edge case without a known security impact, it's competing with a lot of the other work we do to support Matrix, hence slow progress; especially with highly constrained funding.

This is the part I don't understand. If you're working on it in private, you acknowledge it may be a security risk (plus your use of the word "attack"), but you've also de-prioritized it because it's not a security risk?

[0]: "what the hell is this? We have burnt a bunch of time investigating this and trying to help you on this today, and in return we get slagged off on twitter?!" https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/issues/14481#issuecomm...

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#29

Post by gloryjulio »

pierat wrote: post #21
joshsimmons wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that we're operating in a low trust environment, and you don't yet have any reason to trust me. I will say this: I'm not here to carry water for past performance. I _am_ here to build the foundation into the organization the community deserves, and I have a track record when it comes to making organizations more responsive to the communities they serve. Not only will I respond to the questions and concerns, I a…

Put up (the financials and data), or shut up.

Agree with that. Upvoted for the visibility. This issue has going on for years. No more excuses

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#30

Post by VoxPelli »

Zetobal wrote: post #20
joshsimmons wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that we're operating in a low trust environment, and you don't yet have any reason to trust me. I will say this: I'm not here to carry water for past performance. I _am_ here to build the foundation into the organization the community deserves, and I have a track record when it comes to making organizations more responsive to the communities they serve. Not only will I respond to the questions and concerns, I a…

I'll believe you when I see more than empty phrases but tbh I am over hyping up Element/Matrix, so do whatever you want.

Josh has quite the track record from elsewhere, having eg served as president for the very Open Source Initiative itself, so I do think it’s fair to give him time here
Post reply on HN