Wasmer is a VC company building a platform that depends on the existence of these platform APIs – sockets, threads, forking, etc. They have a vested interest in

Wasmer is a VC company building a platform that depends on the existence of these platform APIs – sockets, threads, forking, etc. They have a vested interest in the existence of these APIs, and the health of the developer ecosystem, to stay alive. From here, it kind of seems like the fundamental foundation of everything Wasmer is building. Meanwhile, Bytecode Alliance is a registered non-profit with many large corporate backers. They are building out the WASI standard with careful due diligence to learn from and avoid the mistakes we have found in POSIX. BCA has their own financial incentives, and they are aligned differently than yours. BCA ultimately is moving slower than works for Wasmer. So I guess you were faced with three options: A) wait for BCA, and do nothing B) work with BCA and push it forward C) fork it and do it yourself. So you chose to fork it and reimplement POSIX with all its warts. I assume because this applies pressure to the community (candidly, a good thing) while letting you make progress immediately. Where I, and I assume others, have issue with all of this is: You have chosen a name that has created confusion in an already confusing space. You have whitewashed it by promoting it as a new open standard, but the controlling entity realllyy is just Wasmer[0]. You have demonstrated through your actions a complete lack of willingness to work with people in the community, preferring to strong-arm with veiled threats[1] or perverting incentives financially[2]. The issue isn't with WASIX, but with you and your actions. I have no confidence in your ability to lead this community forward in a way that has my (our) interests ahead of your company's. [0]: https://github.com/wasix-org/wasix-governance-meeting-notes/blob/5135516d091d1bc3810677ea2cc755a67e10c669/meeting-notes-27-07-2023.md#meeting-attendees [1]: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wit-bindgen/issues/306 [2]: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/17115