5 ms·

Saying "the funding is attached to the project" doesn't really answer anything. This new fakerjs isn't the old project, technically or practically speaking (te

Saying "the funding is attached to the project" doesn't really answer anything. This new fakerjs isn't the old project, technically or practically speaking (technically being the important part here). So funding attached to the old project should be still attached to that now-abandoned fakerjs, or straightly up canceled if Open Collective considers it violates their terms, instead of transferring. The fact they can't do it themselves and asked Open Collective's exclusive director to do it "manually" basically self-confirmed it shouldn't be done.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> This new fakerjs isn't the old project, technically or practically speaking (technically being the important part here). No, it's definitely a continuation of the old project. Marak deleted the old project. It's now just a non-functional GitHub repo with a Readme that says "What really happened with Aaron Swartz?". Nobody would consider that to be more like the original fakerjs than this active fork that, literally, retains the original fakerjs. > So funding attached to the old project should be still attached to that now-abandoned fakerjs Not just abandoned. It's deleted. Or at least rendered useless, devoid of history, and non-functional. Why would they continue funneling money to that? Why would they not give money to the actual project as it continues?
- thrdbndndn 5y ago
  That's the sponsors' decision to make. As I said, I have no issue if Open Collective just cancels these sponsorships. What I don't agree is to transfer its sponsors to an account that has zero relationship with original account.
  - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    > That's the sponsors' decision to make. Marak's GitHub sponsors aren't changed. If people wanted to specifically sponsor Marak, they would have chosen to do it there. The Open Collective is very specifically about the project, not a specific person. > What I don't agree is to transfer its sponsors to an account that has zero relationship with original account. The current fakerjs has more of a relationships with the original code than what's in Marak's repo. I don't see the issue. The Open Collective is specifically about sponsoring the project, which Marak clearly and publicly washed his hands of. Again, they weren't sponsoring Marak. They were sponsoring the project. The project is still going.
    - thrdbndndn 5y ago
      Do you also have no issue if GitHub just transfers Marak's repo to the new team? Or all the stars? Since obviously most of people are starring the "project" not him.
      - wonnage 5y ago
        Kinda pointless to argue about this because it didn't happen.
        thrdbndndn 5y ago
        I'm trying to use analogy to show the ridiculousness of transferring followers (sponsors) around without agreement of two parties. Hell, I think it makes even less sense in OC's case since there is real money involved.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> This new fakerjs isn't the old project, technically or practically speaking (technically being the important part here). No, it's definitely a continuation of the old project. Marak deleted the old project. It's now just a non-functional GitHub repo with a Readme that says "What really happened with Aaron Swartz?". Nobody would consider that to be more like the original fakerjs than this active fork that, literally, retains the original fakerjs. > So funding attached to the old project should be still attached to that now-abandoned fakerjs Not just abandoned. It's deleted. Or at least rendered useless, devoid of history, and non-functional. Why would they continue funneling money to that? Why would they not give money to the actual project as it continues?

thrdbndndn 5y ago
That's the sponsors' decision to make. As I said, I have no issue if Open Collective just cancels these sponsorships. What I don't agree is to transfer its sponsors to an account that has zero relationship with original account.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > That's the sponsors' decision to make. Marak's GitHub sponsors aren't changed. If people wanted to specifically sponsor Marak, they would have chosen to do it there. The Open Collective is very specifically about the project, not a specific person. > What I don't agree is to transfer its sponsors to an account that has zero relationship with original account. The current fakerjs has more of a relationships with the original code than what's in Marak's repo. I don't see the issue. The Open Collective is specifically about sponsoring the project, which Marak clearly and publicly washed his hands of. Again, they weren't sponsoring Marak. They were sponsoring the project. The project is still going.
  - thrdbndndn 5y ago
    Do you also have no issue if GitHub just transfers Marak's repo to the new team? Or all the stars? Since obviously most of people are starring the "project" not him.
    - wonnage 5y ago
      Kinda pointless to argue about this because it didn't happen.
      - thrdbndndn 5y ago
        I'm trying to use analogy to show the ridiculousness of transferring followers (sponsors) around without agreement of two parties. Hell, I think it makes even less sense in OC's case since there is real money involved.