> That letter didn't feel ungrateful or malicious at all to me, but I sure hope it didn't come off that way to others.
It might have; software engineering is a big tent, and people who touch Github (in at least someway) no doubt comprise a huge part of it. Full disclaimer, I'm biased, as I opened an issue attempting to address some potential editorial/tone issues, and the initial response was not good (a big part of that may be questions of who exactly is "involved" with the letter. How should others become involved and contribute in a way the OPs feel is constructive?)
As another commenter pointed out, not everything is so black and white. In this case, no one should be "beyond reproach", but what seem like simple issues to Issues may indeed be representative of strong product/technical decisions from an opinionated vendor. IMO it's not inherently clear that the people behind dear-github entirely recognized the nuance here. No one is looking to pick fights or troll anyone, because no, not everyone who is passionate about this issue is a meanie. That said, the original letter and the immediate response could be interpreted as brash, and to that end, I wouldn't be surprised that someone responded with thank-you-github as an opposite reaction.
If so, the way you've written your issue is almost incomprehensible and your point is seriously irrelevant to the requests made by the project creators.
> a big part of that may be questions of who exactly is "involved" with the letter.
Being someone who's helping with the `dear-github` repo, why does WHO is behind the repo matter? Does it change the reflections of the community who've come out to support it and sign it?
We agree, I don't think it matters. I initially believed based on the "petition" nature of the letter and adding signatories that it was going to be an inclusive effort.
Which is why I've asked and received absolutely no answer as to why one of the dear-github organizational "owners" (as labeled on Github) responses to my issue inquiry was to tell me who he was, then use that to determine my issue was not constructive.
> one of the dear-github organizational "owners" (as labeled on Github) responses to my issue inquiry was to tell me who he was, then use that to determine my issue was not constructive.
Based on the issue linked above, it doesn't look like this is what happened. Although it may have happened through some other channel.
What it looks like happened is that neither one of you were able to understand what the other's point was.
It might have; software engineering is a big tent, and people who touch Github (in at least someway) no doubt comprise a huge part of it. Full disclaimer, I'm biased, as I opened an issue attempting to address some potential editorial/tone issues, and the initial response was not good (a big part of that may be questions of who exactly is "involved" with the letter. How should others become involved and contribute in a way the OPs feel is constructive?)
As another commenter pointed out, not everything is so black and white. In this case, no one should be "beyond reproach", but what seem like simple issues to Issues may indeed be representative of strong product/technical decisions from an opinionated vendor. IMO it's not inherently clear that the people behind dear-github entirely recognized the nuance here. No one is looking to pick fights or troll anyone, because no, not everyone who is passionate about this issue is a meanie. That said, the original letter and the immediate response could be interpreted as brash, and to that end, I wouldn't be surprised that someone responded with thank-you-github as an opposite reaction.