[adityab]

Strawman.

The alternative to using the CLI is not Github. He dislikes the fact that a large % of new users of git are wholly dependent on a proprietary service.

This is a very understandable attitude if you are involved in the 'older' open source communities, where people still care about free software in the freedom sense, and do not simply treat open sourcing as a PR advantage.

Understand this: If you require contributors to your project to use Github/similar services, these users are filtered by those who are willing to accept an unreasonably coercive ToS - and yes, most ToSes of American cloud companies are coercive.

It is not a condescending attitude towards people. It is a deep caring for the principles of software freedom - freedom for both users and the people who make the software.

[adityab]

I'm a Github user because of the convenience it affords, and I appreciate that. But if I had a mature open source project that wasn't trying to 'grow' as fast as possible, I'd move it off the service.

[Zikes]

It's not a strawman, the statement at the end of his email strongly implies that he considers people using Github to be incapable of using git without it.

Besides that, nobody would be required to create an account on Github to contribute. The primary repository could be hosted right where it is, with Github available as another avenue of contribution and communication.

[adityab]

> strongly implies that he considers people using Github to be incapable of using git without it.

This is true for most people on Github, unfortunately. There's even an oft-repeated name for this phenomenon: "github monoculture".