Ridiculous. You joined a mere 6 months ago you didn't have any say in the decisions you are trying to defend now. You aren't even defending them you are just babbling and more emberassing playing personal attacked while deflecting. Matrix is dying and element killed it. Good riddance. I knew the stories were too good to be true but turns out you are just as corp as every other hired gun. There is a reason why they put a community manager in charge of matrix.
Tell us why your spec trails your implementation for months so you basically make sure no one can develop competing server/clients.
I think your vitriol is better directed at me (as Matrix project lead & founder) rather than Josh, whose role as MD for the Foundation is to ensure it gathers $ and distributes it as effectively as possible to support Matrix. The original post here is written by Josh because he took over diplomatics with Libera to give it a fresh start as an independent, given the breakdown in trust on both sides.
In terms of Matrix dying, killed by Element: I’m afraid rumours of Matrix's death are highly exaggerated. And Element spends its life helping Matrix come to life rather than death, for better or worse.
The reason the spec trails the implementation for months is precisely the same reason that the formal HTML5 spec trails the implementations for years. It's not some grand conspiracy that Mozilla ships CSS Flexbox behind a vendor prefix for years (decades?) ahead of the feature being finalised in the spec. Instead: the point is that you get to play with the spec change in the wild, prove that it works, iterate on the design, and then eventually propose it for merge into the spec itself.
Personally, I think this is one of the bits of Matrix that we've got right. The spec process doesn't evolve as fast as it could, but that might well be a feature (just like it's a feature that HTML5 moves slowly too, but doesn't stop folks experimenting all over the place on it). https://spec.matrix.org/proposals/ explains the full process and the workflow, in case you want to understand it.
If you're talking about Element switching its contributions to Synapse from Apache to AGPL, the rationale is that folks who want to commercialise Synapse will either have to a) opensource their changes, b) pay for an AGPL exception from Element, c) use a different server (e.g. Apache-licensed Conduit from https://conduit.rs) or d) write their own server.
So, exercising all due restraint, I say this: your statement is unmoored from reality. I thank @camgunz for chiming in and citing sources.