We also recognized that our audiences between Twitter and Mastodon, and produced different material for both platforms, instead of treating both of them as an RSS feed. We kept the technical explanations to Mastodon. I think that the toots on Mastodon look much more professional and representative of something that I would absolutely stand behind. I was the person mostly responsible for that account, although multiple team members managed both accounts:
The audience of Haiku on Twitter is mostly technical, so I agree that “it should stick with the technical stuff”.
It’s true, the document is outdated and I would delete that part if I still had the ability to do so, but I don’t see how the project being dead changes anything. We regularly interacted with people, reposted what other people say about the project, and shared a lot of contributor perspectives. Excuse me if the memes that were tweeted during the first two days as a result of attempting to increase engagement as a result of me trying to take advantage of the fact that everyone was talking about the project (since a Twitter account that tweets relevant material that drive engagement would get recommended to other people) left a toxic aftertaste, and, as a result of that experience, I think I can confidently also agree that this should not be repeated.
We were quite new to this and we were trying to figure out how this could possibly work. Me and others were trying to balance our very good knowledge of the platform and humor, with our highs and lows. You should scroll down further, around tweets in August-September. The direction of the account changed from spreading the word and progress screenshots to dedicating 10 tweets as to what happened, particularly because of misinformation that similar projects, such as Glimpse, were also met with and I think that these comments are missing quite some nuance here.
I think that failing should be considered as acceptable in our situation, particularly as we were under huge amounts of pressure and because our project reached 4k stars before we even got to write a single line of code. We ultimately burned out as a result.
Here are a couple of positive examples made by myself, which were the ones I meant in the document and, according to my opinion, should be reproduced, back around that time when the document was authored:
All the posts that I provided are examples of what I would actually like to see Haiku do – an actively developed, diverse project that has sustained through two decades – specifically, and those were the examples that I had in the back of my head when I wrote the document. I think that bringing up this example without explaining the context or providing some insight into the mistakes that should have probably been avoided was a mistake, but I completely forgot about this document until now. I’d like to emphasize on not treating social media as a one-way RSS feed – even if our attempt was flawed, it absolutely brought results of 1.2k followers, both the right (at least 766 on Mastodon, more “professional”, even if we did attempt to use tongue-in-cheek humor but ultimately ended up avoiding it) and the wrong way.
I think the document should be modified with those examples specifically and mention the mistakes that the three of us brought up, because Tenacity wasn’t Haiku – and this is evident by the signs of adolescent identity experiments, the fact that it attempted to indulge itself in meme culture in order to counter the fact that it was turned into a “victim” of it, and the fact that we put forward a facade of getting along with people over the integrity of the way we looked. I think that we were still taken seriously by the people that actually followed our work. Either way, I definitely believe that I’ve learned and grown as a result of these missteps.