[TAForObvReasons]

A bit of context (why this matters) is useful: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#...

> Since Gitea is a pure community organization without any company support, to keep the development healthy we will elect three owners every year.

> When the new owners have been elected, the old owners will give up ownership to the newly elected owners

According to CONTRIBUTING.md, this dates back to 2016. The new company represents a shift from the community model that attracted many developers and users.

The issue is that ultimately Lunny holds the trademark and isn't legally bound to uphold whatever agreement is stated in the repo.

[dachary]

It may be the case that Lunny forgot he has a moral obligation to the Gitea community that elected him year after year. Even though there is no legally binding contract.

What was done is morally unacceptable. But that can be easily fixed. Just give it all back!

[thrown_22]

It could be have been solved even more simply by making it a legal obligation.

Drama like this is God's way of teaching hippies why we have contract law.

[mmu_man]

I don't see why this wouldn't already be legally binding. He was elected, but he accepted the mandate which is described by this document.

[MRtecno98]

AFAIK he did not sign anything so no actual contract was formed

[sangnoir]

Just because a physical contract wasn't signed does nor mean there isn't a legally binding agreement, see promisory estoppel.