> Many of the things listed in these articles, such as making GCM optional, or supporting distribution outside of Play, are not "completely out of bounds." We've expressly indicated support for them and enumerated the work required, but nobody has committed to doing the work.

> I don't expect anyone to do the work, but I do think it's strange when someone from the FOSS community complains that we haven't done it for them.

The linked article notes that you have not been so supportive of such developments in the past:

> The community reacted to this by developing a version that does not rely on GCM, however, OWS refused to merge the changes into the Signal code. When the project was forked, they prevented the newly established LibreSignal project [5] from connecting to Signal’s servers and prohibited the use of the term “Signal” in their name.

Reading through the comments that are linked it looks like you mostly had technical concerns about the work. Is that correct?

Clearly the perception of your actions is different than you intend. In your comment here you make it sound like no one had even attempted to do resolve these issues. But that's not what the author of the article believes, and given the public record I'm inclined to agree.

> I'd definitely reconsider if people have a plan for avoiding the problems that we encountered the first time, beyond "federation is good." In the mean time I'm happy to help anyone deploying Signal in their own federated environment.

Your key point is that you're content if people do federation in their own, outside of your domain. That's fair. But what I'm saying is the dream of a federated secure messaging system that's also popular is something which you have the power to chase if you commit to it by making it a core feature of Signal.