Thank you for the response.
Re Citrea. While they might be further along, it's still far from the usual rigid requirement, and certainly not an operational product.
This just makes the whole reference to and argument for Citrea in the OP mailing list incredibly weak (and dangerous imho)
Re: GitHub
First, I disagree that this qualifies already as "harassment". It's a valid, albeit dissenting argument, which should be able to be presented at the main stage.
Second, resorting to fine print bureaucract arguments for blocking ("Oh you should not have discussed this here's but in the line over there") makes Core look incredibly weak and insecure. Especially without warning/notice.
You must see that.
This is not the way trustworthy stewardship of a critical FOSS project looks like.
Even benevolent dictators must be benevolent to not lose support from Us the People.
Login to reply
Replies (2)
> without warning/notice
The whole thread was full of warnings. Warnings don't have to be individually tailored. Moderators are often developers too and have better things to do with their time than to give a non-contributor extreme benefit of doubt. Or even to have rigorous due process. Every second these people have to waste on this nonsense is time they're not fixing the next CVE.
Not sure you guys realize how arrogant, snobbish and elitist this comes across.
"Shut up and dribble you plebs! The Pros will handle this. This is Devs-only business!"
You *will* the support of the user base, if such important changes are just pushed through by a handful of ppl - while other changes (which you may not like) are filibustered for yearz.
And snarly sentiment a la "Good luck with your fork" just confirms this. Disappointing.