[CyberRabbi]

    “Since then, “No. 2” has resigned from their position at connectFree, but won’t be able to contribute to the Zig project for some time because of a “non-compete” clause present in the contract.“

So why do you care if No. 2 is not able to work on Zig if you don’t value the contributions he’s made to Zen?

[learc83]

Maybe they believe that No. 2 is capable of making valuable contributions, but that the specific contributions made at the direction of the Zen founder aren’t valuable.

[kristoff_it]

Precisely.

[CyberRabbi]

Two logical issues with that position:

1. Why do you believe that No. 2 can make valuable contributions to Zig if you do not value his contributions to Zen?

2. Why do you believe that No. 2 would be a potential contributor to Zig if he weren’t otherwise legally restricted?

[masklinn]

> 1. Why do you believe that No. 2 can make valuable contributions to Zig if you do not value his contributions to Zen?

Because the project does not care for Zen's desired direction and following this direction is the form No. 2's contributions to Zen would have taken as they were a contractor to Zen.

The contributions No. 2 would make to the Zig project as an individual and independent of Zen are… unrelated to the direction Zen wants.

> 2. Why do you believe that No. 2 would be a potential contributor to Zig if he weren’t otherwise legally restricted?

Because No. 2 is the number two contributor to Zig and is actively stopped from contributing by the NCC. That's literally in the statement.

[masklinn]

What they care about is not the contribution they made to Zen, it's the contribution they would make to Zig and can not due to the NCC.

[efnx]

Because they could make meaningful contributions to Zig, just as they had in the past.