At that point the forks will become its own thing and depart from Firefox.
Which is ironically and exactly how Firefox came to be.
Netscape fucked up Navigator, some folks forked Navigator and created Phoenix - which then was renamed to Firebird, then Firefox. And somewhere in that timeline the Mozilla foundation ditched Navigator in favor of the fork.
I think you’re attributing malice to something else. Bear with me while I point out these two things:
First, The tomatoes quote is a consequence of something he mentioned later:
I firmly believe that FOSS is literally for everyone.
And second, he goes on to write this:
It’s important to note that there are many people who disagree on topics like religion, economic systems, LGBT issues, geopolitics, and other. For whatever reasons they may, we still should not ostracize them as long as they can interact with the FOSS community in a respectful manner, without arguing about those issues in places not meant for such discussions.
Here’s what I think: The dude is dogmatically dense. Not a literal nazi or transphobe. His response about moderation is part of that. “Ugh, I just want to code, not to babysit. If no one is spewing hate in my turf, they are welcome.” And even though I don’t agree with his stance, I still think he has a point: extremes are bad. And if the far-right is bad (“you’re either with us or against us; death to you!”), the far-left is bad too (“you’re either with us or against us; cancelled!”)
I’ve been there. Even after explaining that I was a transgender rights ally and supporter, and asked a question about sports - a question, as in I was trying to get myself informed, this one mod lashed out at me as if I was the devil, simply because my views didn’t perfectly align with hers before getting answers. It really caught me off guard. And she wouldn’t budge. It’s either her view or “pure unadulterated transphobia,” which I found ridiculous. That’s extreme.
But I’m capable of trying to reach to a middleground, whereas Vaxry stays firm - and that’s fine. Don’t like it? Don’t participate in his community! But don’t demonize him for some imaginary intentions you’re placing on him.
Aw, man. I think Vaxry’s got entrapped here.
He is saying that if nothing can sway you from an opinion, then it is a belief, including being 100% opposed to genocide.
(Please note: I don’t side with genocide!!! But I understand his point. Read on.)
I think he’s the positions armchair arguing type, not necessarily the evil type.
I can totally see him say “If a group of people’s solely reason to exist is to exterminate the rest of the human race, if that’s all they think about, if all they do is to accomplish that - induce terror, kill babies, spew propaganda, castrate humans of all races; then it’s safe to say that that group of people should not exist and it should be exterminated.”
That’s an extremely wild scenario, of course! But I think that’s what this guy is saying. We may find genocide in general heinous, but he won’t say that all genocides are bad because of thought examples like the above one.
Then the other party takes that personally, and extrapolates that Vaxry is in favor of exterminating all trans people - something he didn’t say or mean.
My two cents.
I don’t know, man. I read Vaxry’s response and I think that he has a point. There was an incident, and it was dealt with.
Then someone from redhat (because they e-mailed him with from RedHat address) told him “hey we saw improvements on you moderating your community. Great! But if you break our CoC again, we’ll ban you!” To which he replied “Uh, we don’t have a CoC, we don’t belong to your organization, what’s is this about?” And the person replied “This is not a RedHat position. And again, we’ll ban you!”
He explained this in a blogpost and posted the full e-mail conversation.
He also said that the misrepresentation got to such point that a another transgender coder made a contribution to Vaxry’s project, expecting that it would be rejected, and got surprised that her PR got merged.
I’d say, read Hyprland’s responses linked elsewhere in this thread before making any hasty decisions.
It seems (but I’m not sure, to be clear), that it was a situation that got solved, and people are still hung up on it.
It’s like that “but you fuck one sheep” joke.
It seems like the guy is being genuine here. Or was that pure PR?
When Chrome asks the user to activate a similar feature while Firefox doesn’t - welp, no. They don’t understand user consent.
Imagine finding a Mozilla microphone under your dining table. “Oh, but you can remove it and toss it. That’s understanding user consent!”
Oh. Hehe. You have to go there. Understood.
Then don’t go there.
A PR fixing all those issues was merged.
They used “they” when referring to a person, and “it” when referring to a process (the author used “he” when referring to a process calling another process, when he should have used “it.”)