The only time I took a gander on their repo, I saw the main guy asking ChatGPT how to implement something, and pointing the main dev at the answer.
Also, the pay-per-PR approach, while commendable on the surface, has a very high potential of unwanted behavior sneaking in, intentionally or otherwise, especially when combined with such blasé approach to coding and review.
This is perhaps a case where Rust’s superiority lead to questionable net gains. In the sense that if it wasn’t for Rust, such an approach would probably never have produced a product that appears, for all intents and purposes, to be perfectly functional, performant, and stable (presumably, I never used it). Rust allowed here, despite the “hard language” stereotype, a Lego model of development to work. But is that at the end of the day a good thing? That’s an open and nuanced question.
But hey, it’s all open source. If (the collective) you don’t like it, fork it and fix it, or pay for the audit, or use something else. Don’t expect anyone to shed a tear for your alleged quandary, or a become a soldier in your witch hunt.
Good thing there is no long list of signatories in this one. I had to double-check the open letter when it came out to make sure no one fake-included me there.
Hope the nu crowd are winning their arguments hard… in their own echo chambers. Because no one else is going to even feel their presence outside of them.