I see nothing wrong with this. The last thing you want in a technical discussion are petty personal attacks. The moderator sounds a lot like something you would see dang say on HN.
Regardless, since this particular member of the project has clear incentives to be biased in favor of Google, they should have recused themselves, and asked another member of the project/moderator of the list to judge whether the message was appropriate.
Someone paid by a company should not be making moderation decisions about comments related to that company.
(He's also an llvm foundation board member, etc).
Truthfully, I think the drive by commentary by HN on a community they appear to have about 10 minutes experience dealing with is a much worse look than what chandler did here.
It's funny to watch an entire group of people assume they understand the situations, motives, and community, based on a sample size of "1-2 emails".
If anyone actually bothered to look at the history of his moderation, you'd see he's incredibly consistent in his moderation. In fact, he's publicly called out me before for something similar, despite the fact that I was his boss's boss.
So I don't think it's reasonable to claim what should be happening here when the community itself has not asked for anything different - in fact, it's been quite happy with it.
If you want to become part of that community and then suggest change, by all means, you are more than welcome to join and contribute.
If that's insulting at all, it's several levels less insulting than the sort of thing I see dang moderating.
> I don't think this project poses any risk there, much like Zach points out in his reply. Google is specifically discussing [...]
Now he’s using his moderator rights to push his opinion which unsurprisingly defends his employer.
He should have sent two mails, one moderating and one participating in the discussion.
Guess who just finished their Conflict of Interest yearly refresher!