I was simply describing my experience and yet someone always tries to minimize or discredit assuming some other motive; whatever, the world isn't all rainbows and sunshine. You seem to have missed the point, didn't read, both, or have some other agenda.
To turn it around, what's your motive for being 'unusually' defensive? You know there are three lichess right, the organization, the service, and the OSS code. What are we talking about here? The former, not the latter two.
At this point I could care less how they run their ship. I've learned that what they sell to the public, and the process by which they operate are different things, and through their actions that they don't value processes that are generally accepted and work.
As a result, I won't have anything to do with them, but its annoying how many people blindly have to assert the assumption that Lichess (the organization) can do no wrong, and the marketed narrative is the whole picture, and implying that anyone saying differently is attacking or has some subversive plan to hurt the community.
Honestly, that kind of propaganda strategy sounds just like something one might hear in the Nuremberg trials (Henry Goering interview with Goebbels).
To be clear, I only posted today because this spoiled my newsfeed. If they want to be transparent they should publish a professional post-mortem.
If by 'they' you are referring to Lichess (I'm assuming you were since my post speaks for itself), the published report has holes and doesn't account for the reported site-wide service interruption that occurred some time earlier before they were forced to suspend the tournament.
Specific holes include, there isn't a timeline with any kind of useful supporting documentation or detail (metrics, logs between services) etc. The graph that was provided is worthless beyond showing a correlative spike in traffic when the issue became noticeable. It does not inform the cause in any practical way other than to say there was an issue at some point before the spike which culminated in an outage.
They carefully don't mention any useful, supporting, or practical detail about the architecture, logging, load shedding, etc, that would support that what they say is what happened.
They say it wasn't overloaded, when it was clearly resource constrained.
In my opinion the communication is an assurance article, a table with no legs. We can only guess at what happened, unless they share more specific details.
Also, annoyingly, they say load testing and simulation can't be done at that scale. It can, but to get usable results that accurately model and inform, requires competent engineering and resources. It is not simple, but neither is it beyond the pale either.
Indirect pronouns can be troublesome. Dangerous at both ends and crafty in the middle.
They don't say this at all. What they say is extremely reasonable:
> Even simulating events at this scale is not easy
Your misinterpretation of this does not inspire confidence in the rest of the uncharitable things you've said about them.