Post · bonfire.cafe

@cas @womble @eigen @mhoye The people I'm referring to are those who had the power to say no, and didn't, and didn't even say "hey wait we need to think about this and consult the community".

I'm not claiming "Microsoft was demanding this". I'm saying it's hard to say no to something where the prevailing media narrative is that it's essential for future legal compliance and your employer's lawyers are going to question why you're doing something that risks the software they use/ship not complying.

Cassandrich

@dalias@hachyderm.io · 2 hours ago

@cas @womble @eigen @mhoye I am willing to give them a chance on technical matters.

I am not willing to look the other way while they make social/political decisions for their projects that align with an ongoing worldwide slide into fascism without even questioning them or seeking community feedback.

Cassandrich

@dalias@hachyderm.io · 1 hour ago

@cas @womble @eigen @mhoye Maybe I was a little harsh in my original post you replied to regarding "disqualifying".

What I think I wanted to express was that the *professional* way to handle a situation of being hired like this would be to remove oneself from editoral control over the project at the time of hire and transition to a more advisory/review role, *with the new maintainer(s) actually empowered and willing to say no to things* (as is a maintainer's primary role).

achill

@fossdd@chaos.social · 1 hour ago

@dalias @cas @womble @eigen @mhoye maybe in an ideal world, but realistically that makes no sense if you're just trying to get a job and want to continue what you're doing

Cassandrich

@dalias@hachyderm.io · 1 hour ago

@fossdd @cas @womble @eigen @mhoye From a standpoint of the person's short-term self-interest, sure, why not. 🤷

But from our communities' self-interest, we should be rejecting projects run by people who behave that way. Or at least not letting those projects become core dependencies.