I'm not familiar with what happened from beginning to end, but regardless of the actual chain of events or if the CEO was right or wrong to kick him out, I'm not sure how users can still trust Daniel after destroying signing keys.
how can you possibly state that when the users have no control or say over this decision?
> If users trust the key because they trust updates coming from Daniel ..., then
That's a big-ish "if"; I didn't weigh in on whether I think it's true. A reasonable person could go either-way on that. If it is true, then Daniel was justified, if it's not, then he wasn't.
> ... when the users have no control or say over this decision?
If we assume that people trusted Copperhead-the-organization because they trusted Daniel and that Daniel's removal is a change-of-hands, then the decisions is:
- Do nothing (and stop receiving updates)
- Start trusting the new engineering leadership of Copperhead-the-organization
From that perspective, it makes sense that Daniel should destroy the key: Making the active decision to start trusting the new Copperhead requires the active technical step of installing the new key; making the inactive decision doesn't require action.
If on the other hand we assume that Daniel was an implementation detail and that people trust Copperhead-the-organization as an institution, then the decision is:
- Stop trusting Copperhead-the-organization (and stop receiving updates)
- Do nothing
From that perspective, it makes sense that Daniel should not destroy the key: Making the active decision of ceasing trust requires the active technical step of disabling updates.
The project is dead. Stop poking it with a stick. It won't rise up again.
I'm not poking at it with a stick, I'm asking questions as an outsider just learning about it.