I 100% support and appreciate Jeff's (and everyone's) right to take a stance when it comes to how they spend their time. We have a finite amount of time available to us, and should spend it on what's important to us, especially as that changes. See Jeff's blog post on "Saying No"[1] that really hits home with why this is important.
What I'm having trouble understanding is the overwhelming use of IBM-related anecdotes (regardless of historical truthiness, and I'm not making any claim that it's wise or unwise to be wary - that's to each their own), reframed statements painted to appear like Red Hat's made brash statements about its community, and the general gall needed to make statements such as "tell your employees to stop [doing a thing]".
I get that this event may have felt like a violation of trust, and that a violation of trust probably hurts the most. To that end, I suppose emotional responses make sense. But it would have been significantly less cognitive load (on ones self, as an open source maintainer/contributor) to just pull your support and move forward.
What I'm having trouble understanding is the overwhelming use of IBM-related anecdotes (regardless of historical truthiness, and I'm not making any claim that it's wise or unwise to be wary - that's to each their own), reframed statements painted to appear like Red Hat's made brash statements about its community, and the general gall needed to make statements such as "tell your employees to stop [doing a thing]".
I get that this event may have felt like a violation of trust, and that a violation of trust probably hurts the most. To that end, I suppose emotional responses make sense. But it would have been significantly less cognitive load (on ones self, as an open source maintainer/contributor) to just pull your support and move forward.
[1]https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2022/just-say-no