Regardless of what you think of Jon Pretty, how is this justifiable? Telling people they can't unsupport something because you're not open to issues, but also not removing it?!
Yes.
I have no involvement in this drama (it's the first I've heard of it actually), but signing your name to something matters.
Choose carefully what/who you support.
A repo owner is not obligated to accept contributions.
All of those people are free to create their own repo, post on social media, or write an article recanting their support if they choose to do so.
Morality is subjective (that's why we have courts; which don't respect the individual and differing moralities of the parties involved, it has its own moral bar, for better or worse).
In this case, I feel it is more moral to record all the members of the mob. Maybe this would cause them to think twice before joining the next mob.
I mean, if we are going to have witch-hunt mobs, then the lesser evil is to not allow anonymous mobbers.
Not necessarily, plenty of projects have been put in an archive state because they are 'finished', superseded, forked, etc. This isn't code nor a living document, it was a one-off operation.
- Upon reflection, I don't think this letter was the right approach for this situation. Although I cannot retract my initial decision to sign it, I would appreciate having my signature removed from the document.
- We had good intentions and reasons for concern, but there was no due process, and the consequences of that can be awful. Please accept my withdrawal.
- The goal of providing safe spaces is laudable and necessary, but I expected to see further process outcomes from this effort. Perhaps some sort of SIP or scalarum iustitiae processus.
- I no longer believe the way this letter was the right way of dealing with the situation. And while I cannot undo signing it, I would like to request removing my signature.
Good apologies require more than memory-holing an injurious attack.
So I think pull requests are still accepted, but issues are not.