I'm... really uncertain on their attitude towards naming and shaming him. It's quite easy to find information relating to him personally online due to what they have posted, and yet the allegations made against him seem nebulous at best?
Probably said something conservative.
Too many Linux projects are run by crazy leftists that will kick you out if you say anything to disagree with their politics.
am I missing something or is the PLC is a bit delusional to think they have right to the ownership of the u-boot.org domain?
He "owns" it, and clearly does not want to hand it over. I paraphrase but he's not "holding the domain hostage" if he pays for it. Sounds like they are forcing him to hand it over lol.
I don't think it's clear either....I feel like it tries to imply that it was purchased with community money? If that's the case, it's understandable but really shouldn't have been registered to a person, but the charity. Things happen in small orgs though. I can understand feeling entitled to the domain, in this case.
If he purchased it and was funding it out of pocket, I agree PLC has no right to try to force him to hand it over
Is the PLC a group of technical contributors or like a CoC committee?
Anyone have a QRD of this guy's behavior and relation to that community? I've never heard of u-boot, and this is a little vague in some places.
I'm... really uncertain on their attitude towards naming and shaming him. It's quite easy to find information relating to him personally online due to what they have posted, and yet the allegations made against him seem nebulous at best?
Probably said something conservative. Too many Linux projects are run by crazy leftists that will kick you out if you say anything to disagree with their politics.
ugh, I really wish this was hyperbole but certain people at NixOS (many whom don't even use the OS) keep trying it.
am I missing something or is the PLC is a bit delusional to think they have right to the ownership of the u-boot.org domain?
He "owns" it, and clearly does not want to hand it over. I paraphrase but he's not "holding the domain hostage" if he pays for it. Sounds like they are forcing him to hand it over lol.
I don't think it's clear either....I feel like it tries to imply that it was purchased with community money? If that's the case, it's understandable but really shouldn't have been registered to a person, but the charity. Things happen in small orgs though. I can understand feeling entitled to the domain, in this case.
If he purchased it and was funding it out of pocket, I agree PLC has no right to try to force him to hand it over