[Macha]

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.

[syrusakbary]

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)

[tpmoney]

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.

[syrusakbary]

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

[tpmoney]

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.

[syrusakbary]

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

[tpmoney]

I'm not even sure how to respond to this other than by pointing out that it's a perfect example of your terrible communication skills. I'm telling you that you take a common phrase like "for some reason" which any reasonable person would at best interpret as a genuine lack of known reason, and more likely (both because of the medium, and your generally hostile tone) as a snarky implication that there's something nefarious going on, and you claim that you meant it as a general expression of disagreement. I'm fairly confident that no one hears "for some reason" and translates that to "I completely understand and acknowledge the stated reasons and disagree that they are right". I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you have a reason to – consistently, over months and multiple "incidents" – have these sorts of "misunderstandings", and am suggesting that you do something to make sure your communications are clear, or otherwise stay out of doing the communicating. I even noted that your goal of transparency was laudable, but that you weren't actually accomplishing what you thought you were.

You've somehow managed to twist that into a rant about how wester culture only values PR as a way to "shape the reality" and how I "care more about the PR stunt". You are a bad communicator. The problem isn't your "culture of honesty". The problem is you keep choosing words and phrases that don't mean what you intend them to mean. The problem is that when people try to get that "accountability" out of you, you double down and insist that you are being mis-understood and that people have it out for you. The problem is your tone, words and actions come across as defensive, dishonest and in some cases more like a PR attempt to "shape the reality rather than accountability".

I'm glad you've hired incredibly talented people who couldn't care less about PR stunts. You owe it to those people to stop torpedoing your own business with your inability to live up to your goals of clear communication.