Hi,

I agree the "unnamed" and not having good docs (hello again, topic)
on this is bad.

There's a long history of the web presence being treated in a special
way, though. Even in the good old CVS/SVN days, you needed a special
permission bit to be able to commit to www/ doled out by sysadmin via
a murky badly-defined process. This isn't a new problem. This problem
predates most of our present-day contributors, so it's ironically a
very KDE thing.

Here's the way to fix this: kde-promo writes a documentation page on
the wiki about how the Twitter account is run and how exactly to
escalate requests related to it.


Cheers,
Eike


On 07/19/2018 09:07 PM, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 01:01:25PM +0100, David Edmundson wrote:
>>
>>     So that's a no then.  Tell these higher-ups that partial blocking of a
>>     proven contributor from completing a specific task when they have 15
>>     years of track record is demotivating and not how things should be
>>     done in KDE.
>>
>>
>> Peer review is exactly how things should be done in KDE.
>>
>> I don't understand the problem, maybe you can explain what is unique about your
>> specific task that means you should skip it.
> 
> I know the process, I've been doing it for 15 years.  I'm not skipping
> the process I'm being blocked by an opaque group from doing it in an
> efficient manor as I have done successfully for longer than any other
> person in KDE.
> 
> Jonathan
>