<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>steepdawn974 wrote</title><author_name>steepdawn974 (npub18w…58w27)</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.now/npub18w5m3n6cpq4axlhvrpz4kf4mqjj87j5wsddvrrr75s6gvulwzc3s458w27</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.now</provider_url><html>Thank you for the response.&#xA;&#xA;Re Citrea. While they might be further along, it&#39;s still far from the usual rigid requirement, and certainly not an operational product.&#xA;This just makes the whole reference to and argument for Citrea in the OP mailing list incredibly weak (and dangerous imho)&#xA;&#xA;Re: GitHub&#xA;First, I disagree that this qualifies already as &#34;harassment&#34;. It&#39;s a valid, albeit dissenting argument, which should be able to be presented at the main stage.&#xA;&#xA;Second, resorting to fine print bureaucract arguments for blocking (&#34;Oh you should not have discussed this here&#39;s but in the line over there&#34;) makes Core look incredibly weak and insecure. Especially without warning/notice.&#xA;You must see that.&#xA;&#xA;This is not the way trustworthy stewardship of a critical FOSS project looks like.&#xA;Even benevolent dictators must be benevolent to not lose support from Us the People.</html></oembed>