What is not acceptable is the lack of transparency - the reason for removing maintainers should be stated clearly and plainly, not hidden under weasely terms like "various compliance requirements" that communicate nothing.
Are the "compliance requirements" anti-Russian sanctions, or is it a new legal theory by Microsoft that it is illegal for anyone who has used Windows 11 to contribute to FOSS software, but we don't get to learn how the law is being applied, because the people that should be shedding light on it are instead hiding it.
In short, do we want the law to be public, or secret? Any time vague terms like "legal reasons" or "compliance requirements", are used, it becomes a little more secret.
- (177 points, 1 day ago, 245 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41919670
- (10 points, today, 1 comment) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41938281
Software is written by people, however, who have no such obligation. As Desmond Tutu said,
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality"
