My first thoughts are: I don't know any of those people, tor is open source, they should settle this in court like everyone else and keep tor out of it.
But I agree that the best strategy, assuming there was malfeasance, is probably not to hold Tor authorities accountable in this way.
I personally don't care about the people who work on a project that should be strictly technical. I don't understand why did they have to mix politics in.
Whether or not Tor wishes to continue employing him should be left to the opinions of Tor management, which they are fully permitted to form after simply listening to the women he raped.
I believe them. You should, too.
Believing multiple rape victims isn't a witch hunt.
>I believe them. You should, too.
I don't believe them for two reasons:
1) There is no actual proof. I don't believe things for which there's no proof.
2) It's possible multiple people didn't like him and therefore between themselves they decided to accuse him of rape to get rid of him.
You can doubt the credibility of that, if you like, but that's up to you; to say there is no proof is a falsehood.
It is interesting that you pay more heed to the notion of a character assassination conspiracy involving multiple credible parties than the simpler explanation that perhaps this well-known liar is also a well-known rapist.
Have you heard of Occam's Razor?
The project itself is full with all sorts of people with mental illnesses, including sexual deviations, and a strong political bias--it's a massive echo chamber right now.
And it's a shame because of the nature of this project: it should be kept neutral. Similar to the EFF for example.
I dunno, maybe this is some liberal extremism speaking, but I don't think organizations should be neutral on the issue of raping people.