docs/go-to-market.md — the strategy, private #95
Labels
No labels
area:docs
area:identity
area:ops
area:plugin
area:server
channel:community
channel:direct
channel:owned
channel:press
channel:social
e2ee-constrained
gate:at-ga
gate:pre-ga
marketing
parity
relay:absent
relay:planned
relay:requested
relay:supported
risk:additive
risk:contract
risk:none
usability
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set
Reference
Nectenda/nectenda#95
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Why
The strategy needs one home. The master issue carries the checklist and the
links; duplicating the reasoning into it gives two copies, and two copies of a
strategy is one copy that goes stale.
What to do
docs/go-to-market.md, covering:pentesters, and why that segment rather than the larger developer one.
to each.
docs/positioning.md.number that matters and none of the others predict it well at this scale.
Constraints
It stays private.
scripts/build-mirror.mjs'sPUBLIC_DOCScurrentlycontains
security-model.mdand nothing else — the four that used to sit besideit were removed — and the verifier fails the stage if any mirrored file links a
docs/path not on that list. So a new private doc is safe by default, and theonly real risk is a mirrored comment citing it.
Being private is what lets it cite
positioning.mdandcompetition-relay.mdfreely. Neither of those may be quoted in anything public.
When quoting Relay's non-encryption anywhere public, quote their live
documentation and re-verify at the time of writing. This is not hypothetical:
the snapshot taken 1 September 2026 records "we have the technical ability to
access synced content if required", and the page on 22 September reads
"Relay isn't end-to-end encrypted, so the server that can read your documents
still exists; with self-hosting, that server is yours." The claim holds; the
wording moved. Archive what you quote, and never frame them as dishonest — they
document it plainly, which is the strongest version of the point anyway.
Moved to the Vikunja board as NEC-71: https://projectron.nerchure.com/tasks/71