When you, as a free software project maintainer, rely on proprietary software for your infrastructure, you send a bad message of "I expect my free software to b

When you, as a free software project maintainer, rely on proprietary software for your infrastructure, you send a bad message of "I expect my free software to be good enough for you, but your free software is not good enough for me." That makes no sense at all. Firstly, most people working on free software don't make assertions like, "My free software is good enough for you." Most of us are much more realistic and assert something more like "My free software might be good enough for you, here's why you should consider it." Secondly, even if one were making that assertion that one's free software is good enough for others, why would that mean they should believe all free software is good enough for everyone? It just doesn't follow. I am completely opposed to editing messages after they are sent (chat is append only!) This isn't relevant. Your personal communication preferences are not universal. Slack's popularity shows people don't care about this. But ultimately, even if Slack has more convenient features, we cannot rightly use it because it doesn't respect our freedom Most developers aren't as dogmatic as this. You're in an extreme minority. Which is totally fine, and you should try to convince others if you feel they should be convinced, as long as you recognize most of us aren't in your "we". It's not true that I must reject Slack.