Zippy02 wrote:

blessingj100 wrote:

one with November 19th as the date

Has this comment been deleted, I can not seem to find the original comment…

blessingj100 wrote:

Another comment from him said that it would take about 2-3 weeks after an announcement before the site closed down to switch to the new update.

If Codubee said it would be “about 2-3” weeks after the announcement this suggests there might no release date set (Unless it was said long ago). Additionally, I don't think Scratch Team know how long site migration will take as in exact days.

Cheezzychiknzzz wrote:

WPONTA wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

(#1855)

MeyseyH wrote:

Anyway, stop trying to speculate and find stuff out, and be patient instead.

It's sad how nobody seems to believe in transparency anymore. The community needs transparemcy

Agree. But what do you mean?

It basically mean they don't want anyone to know about their “private discussions”
If I want to compare an average SMP member's transparency to an object, it would be a solid wall of concrete

scratchniceperson wrote:

Cheezzychiknzzz wrote:

WPONTA wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

(#1855)

MeyseyH wrote:

Anyway, stop trying to speculate and find stuff out, and be patient instead.

It's sad how nobody seems to believe in transparency anymore. The community needs transparemcy

Agree. But what do you mean?

It basically mean they don't want anyone to know about their “private discussions”
If I want to compare an average SMP member's transparency to an object, it would be a solid wall of concrete

So, are you expecting us, as SMP/YAB members, to disclose every confidential detail of our internal discussions and upcoming plans in the name of “transparency”? Absolutely not. There is a clear difference between transparency and disclosing confidential information.

Transparency means keeping the community informed about an organization’s activities, responsibilities, and general direction. It does NOT mean making every internal discussion, unfinished proposal, or confidential decision publicly available.

The community has already been provided with considerable transparency. The NGP was communicated months in advance. YAB’s responsibilities have been described as involving product design and backend-related work, making its general involvement clear. Similarly, SMP’s responsibilities have been outlined as community events, cross-organizational collaborations, and SDS planning, making it clear that SMP is not involved in the NGP.

Teams can be accountable and transparent without revealing every internal operation. Prematurely sharing unfinished information can also create misunderstandings, unrealistic expectations, and unnecessary speculation, especially when plans and timelines can still change.

What’s frustrating is that all this existing transparency is being overlooked simply because people want more information about the NGP. Instead of acknowledging what has already been communicated, people continue speculating and spreading unverified rumours.

Transparency does not mean unlimited access. You can reasonably ask for updates and accountability, but expecting members to disclose confidential information to prove their transparency is unreasonable. Not every unanswered question indicates secrecy or dishonesty. Sometimes, information simply cannot be shared yet, and that boundary deserves to be respected.

scratchniceperson wrote:

So, are you expecting us, as SMP/YAB members, to disclose every confidential detail of our internal discussions and upcoming plans in the name of “transparency”? Absolutely not. There is a clear difference between transparency and disclosing confidential information.

scratchniceperson wrote:

(snip of the rest of the Great Wall of Text)

gem1001 wrote:

scratchniceperson wrote:

(snip of the Great Wall of Text)

'Confidentiality' is just an excuse for opacity; there is no reason for anything to be ‘confidential’, and Scratch in its current state is no more transparent than any random Big Tech™ company.

Look at Scratch around 2010 and you can see real transparency: 2.0 had a public pre-alpha 3 years in advance, the website had a public alpha a year in advance, and they weren't afraid to publicly announce their current plans, including release dates that they ended up missing, and features that got changed later on. But they didn't try to do everything behind closed doors with private groups, and actually listened to and engaged with the community.

Now, everything happens either in their private Jira, the private forums, or whatever other private ways they have of concealing information from the community and avoiding engaging with them. That is not transparency, and a few little drops of information, half of which you can't tell if they are jokes or not, is as transparent as giving a starving person a breadcrumb is generous.

the-eagle-that-has-a-censored-name-in-the-forums- wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

scratchniceperson wrote:

(snip of the Great Wall of Text)

'Confidentiality' is just an excuse for opacity; there is no reason for anything to be ‘confidential’, and Scratch in its current state is no more transparent than any random Big Tech™ company.

Look at Scratch around 2010 and you can see real transparency: 2.0 had a public pre-alpha 3 years in advance, the website had a public alpha a year in advance, and they weren't afraid to publicly announce their current plans, including release dates that they ended up missing, and features that got changed later on. But they didn't try to do everything behind closed doors with private groups, and actually listened to and engaged with the community.

Now, everything happens either in their private Jira, the private forums, or whatever other private ways they have of concealing information from the community and avoiding engaging with them. That is not transparency, and a few little drops of information, half of which you can't tell if they are jokes or not, is as transparent as giving a starving person a breadcrumb is generous.

PREACH!

Drag00nKnight_999 wrote:

the-eagle-that-has-a-censored-name-in-the-forums- wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

scratchniceperson wrote:

(snip of the Great Wall of Text)

'Confidentiality' is just an excuse for opacity; there is no reason for anything to be ‘confidential’, and Scratch in its current state is no more transparent than any random Big Tech™ company.

Look at Scratch around 2010 and you can see real transparency: 2.0 had a public pre-alpha 3 years in advance, the website had a public alpha a year in advance, and they weren't afraid to publicly announce their current plans, including release dates that they ended up missing, and features that got changed later on. But they didn't try to do everything behind closed doors with private groups, and actually listened to and engaged with the community.

Now, everything happens either in their private Jira, the private forums, or whatever other private ways they have of concealing information from the community and avoiding engaging with them. That is not transparency, and a few little drops of information, half of which you can't tell if they are jokes or not, is as transparent as giving a starving person a breadcrumb is generous.

PREACH!

?

censored name- wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

scratchniceperson wrote:

(snip of the Great Wall of Text)

'Confidentiality' is just an excuse for opacity; there is no reason for anything to be ‘confidential’, and Scratch in its current state is no more transparent than any random Big Tech™ company.

Look at Scratch around 2010 and you can see real transparency: 2.0 had a public pre-alpha 3 years in advance, the website had a public alpha a year in advance, and they weren't afraid to publicly announce their current plans, including release dates that they ended up missing, and features that got changed later on. But they didn't try to do everything behind closed doors with private groups, and actually listened to and engaged with the community.

Now, everything happens either in their private Jira, the private forums, or whatever other private ways they have of concealing information from the community and avoiding engaging with them. That is not transparency, and a few little drops of information, half of which you can't tell if they are jokes or not, is as transparent as giving a starving person a breadcrumb is generous.

PREACH!
The ST getting more and more out of touch with the community to the point its just sad. (wiki Wednesday is gone, video updates is gone, the whole update thing, ai training and its very poor explanation, etc) This whole forum and its arguments would have never existed if it wasn't for the ST keeping everything behind closed walls instead of giving updates.

scratchniceperson wrote:

censored name- wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

scratchniceperson wrote:

(snip of the Great Wall of Text)

'Confidentiality' is just an excuse for opacity; there is no reason for anything to be ‘confidential’, and Scratch in its current state is no more transparent than any random Big Tech™ company.

Look at Scratch around 2010 and you can see real transparency: 2.0 had a public pre-alpha 3 years in advance, the website had a public alpha a year in advance, and they weren't afraid to publicly announce their current plans, including release dates that they ended up missing, and features that got changed later on. But they didn't try to do everything behind closed doors with private groups, and actually listened to and engaged with the community.

Now, everything happens either in their private Jira, the private forums, or whatever other private ways they have of concealing information from the community and avoiding engaging with them. That is not transparency, and a few little drops of information, half of which you can't tell if they are jokes or not, is as transparent as giving a starving person a breadcrumb is generous.

PREACH!
The ST getting more and more out of touch with the community to the point its just sad. (wiki Wednesday is gone, video updates is gone, the whole update thing, ai training and its very poor explanation, etc) This whole forum and its arguments would have never existed if it wasn't for the ST keeping everything behind closed walls instead of giving updates.

I think you’re conflating two entirely different discussions here. Whether the Scratch Team should provide more transparency regarding its development plans and decisions is a valid discussion. However, that is NOT the same as expecting SMP/YAB members to disclose confidential internal discussions and plans.

If you believe the Scratch Team needs to improve its communication with the community, direct that criticism towards the appropriate channels. Individual SMP/YAB members should not be expected to compensate for perceived shortcomings in the Scratch Team’s communication by revealing information they are not authorized to share.

You can advocate for greater transparency without dismissing the importance of confidentiality. The two are not mutually exclusive, and one does not justify disregarding the other.

DeathReviews wrote:

What with all the AI essays? Can we just, find peace?

gem1001 wrote:

scratchniceperson wrote:

So, are you expecting us, as SMP/YAB members, to disclose every confidential detail of our internal discussions and upcoming plans in the name of “transparency”? Absolutely not. There is a clear difference between transparency and disclosing confidential information.

Pretty much yes? It's not that unreasonable.
<snip>

Paddle2See wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

scratchniceperson wrote:

So, are you expecting us, as SMP/YAB members, to disclose every confidential detail of our internal discussions and upcoming plans in the name of “transparency”? Absolutely not. There is a clear difference between transparency and disclosing confidential information.

Pretty much yes? It's not that unreasonable.
<snip>

I strongly suggest that any SMP/YAB members check with their Scratch Team leaders before following this request. It's up to the Scratch Team to decide how much information is released at each step of the development process.

Paddle2See wrote:

I strongly suggest that any SMP/YAB members check with their Scratch Team leaders before following this request. It's up to the Scratch Team to decide how much information is released at each step of the development process.

Fur- wrote:

scratchniceperson wrote:

censored name- wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

scratchniceperson wrote:

(snip of the Great Wall of Text)

wasn't like
the comment I was replying to also talking about the ST?
Also I'm gonna be honest, having SMP/YAB disclose it is pretty understandable, the ST can't always provide how the community would feel or provide opinions the same way users can (unless like SMP/YAB is banned from freedom of speech then there's no difference)

We are not banned from freedom of speech nor have signed any NDA! But there is a trust created between the ST and YLL members to keep private information private! I would like to state this thing again:

Expecting SMP/YAB to publicly disclose EVERY internal discussion, event and SDS plan, cross-organizational collaboration (including Amazon partnership discussions), product design meeting, focus group, and development process is absolutely unreasonable and impractical. Transparency does NOT mean turning every internal operation into a public discussion, compromising partner confidentiality, exposing private participant feedback, or eliminating the flexibility teams need to plan, collaborate, and deliver meaningful experiences for the community!

I would not like to proceed with this discussion further as the flame war has gotten intense.

Paddle2See wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

scratchniceperson wrote:

So, are you expecting us, as SMP/YAB members, to disclose every confidential detail of our internal discussions and upcoming plans in the name of “transparency”? Absolutely not. There is a clear difference between transparency and disclosing confidential information.

Pretty much yes? It's not that unreasonable.
<snip>

I strongly suggest that any SMP/YAB members check with their Scratch Team leaders before following this request. It's up to the Scratch Team to decide how much information is released at each step of the development process.

Paddle2See wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

scratchniceperson wrote:

So, are you expecting us, as SMP/YAB members, to disclose every confidential detail of our internal discussions and upcoming plans in the name of “transparency”? Absolutely not. There is a clear difference between transparency and disclosing confidential information.

Pretty much yes? It's not that unreasonable.
<snip>

I strongly suggest that any SMP/YAB members check with their Scratch Team leaders before following this request. It's up to the Scratch Team to decide how much information is released at each step of the development process.

IceGamerUltra wrote:

Paddle2See wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

scratchniceperson wrote:

So, are you expecting us, as SMP/YAB members, to disclose every confidential detail of our internal discussions and upcoming plans in the name of “transparency”? Absolutely not. There is a clear difference between transparency and disclosing confidential information.

Pretty much yes? It's not that unreasonable.
<snip>

I strongly suggest that any SMP/YAB members check with their Scratch Team leaders before following this request. It's up to the Scratch Team to decide how much information is released at each step of the development process.

I got scared this topic was gonna be shut down for a sec there