This seems to have all the same issues of pressuring the maintainers to accept your feature by making them responsible for denying a payout to a third party, even if the feature doesn't fit their codebase.
Honestly, continuing this push, more than anything else in the events so far, makes me distrust wasmer's intentions.
Have you read the issue and other comments on this thread?
We explicitly stated that the work would not be needed to be merged upstream for the bounty to be rewarded (a comment that for some reason the Zig team decided to delete)
They deleted all the comments regarding the bounty. So "for some reason" seems to be as stated in the issue tracker:
> [The Zig issue tracker] is only, exclusively, and for no other purpose than for working on the Zig compiler and related tools.
I get you're both personally vested in this and personally slighted by their decisions, but claiming you don't know why that comment was deleted is just stirring shit where there's none to be stirred.
Stating “for some reason” is simply a way to reinforce my full disagreement with the decision of deleting comments, as I don’t think it was the right one.
Sorry if that was not clear
So I mean what I'm about to say completely sincerely. I don't know if english isn't your first language, if you have a completely separate cultural background, or you fall into a neuro-divergent category that presents problems with communication. I get that the english language is full of idioms and unstated assumptions, and further that text online communication lacks the tone and body language cues that make reading some of those side channels harder. Regardless, you seem to have a lot of communication mis-steps and moments of being "not clear", around this and other problems that have come up with your company in the past.
You're the CEO of a company trying to push something forward, you should probably put some serious thought into getting a PR person to either vet the things you're going to say, or just have them speak for you and your company and stay out of discussions yourself. It's one thing to have occasional mis-communications, but when you're very publicly having multiple "mis-communications" that are resulting in negative reputation for your company, you're actively doing harm to your employees and their work. Open transparency that isn't filtered through PR speak is a laudable goal, but by the nature of being a business and a business owner, you're going to be held to a higher standard than your average anonymous forum poster, and consequently you need to be aware of when your "open transparency" is a liability rather than a positive for your company.
I think you laid out very well one of the issues of the last century in the western culture: PR as a way to help shape the reality rather than accountability through transparency.
Fortunately enough the open transparency strategy has helped us to hire incredibly talented people that couldn’t care less about the PR stunt, and full transparency have helped them understand the reality of complex situations, solving any misinterpretations with clear communication. That’s a culture worth fighting for. Of course, if you care more about the PR stunt I can fully understand your point of view
Honestly, continuing this push, more than anything else in the events so far, makes me distrust wasmer's intentions.