I'm open to alternative perspectives on this matter, but lawlessness isn't a meaningful term, at least in the the USA where this would preside, jurisdictionally.
It appears the maintainers involved had a personal or ideological conflict with DHH and overestimated their influence within the project. Their current prominence seems tied to things not unfolding as they hoped.
Notably, these maintainers were removed with the stated reason that they were dangerous to the project. There hasn't been evidence or arguments presented to counter this characterization.
The reality is that no company wants to deal with this kind of disruption. In the past, ZIRP and tax incentives made such issues tolerable, but those days are over.
If their concerns about a hostile takeover were valid, wouldn't the logical response be to stay involved and work to regain influence? Instead, their actions suggest less focus on the project's well-being and more on frustration over contributing significant effort for minimal reward, while using their roles to push personal or political agendas.
It appears the maintainers involved had a personal or ideological conflict with DHH and overestimated their influence within the project. Their current prominence seems tied to things not unfolding as they hoped.
Notably, these maintainers were removed with the stated reason that they were dangerous to the project. There hasn't been evidence or arguments presented to counter this characterization.
The reality is that no company wants to deal with this kind of disruption. In the past, ZIRP and tax incentives made such issues tolerable, but those days are over.
If their concerns about a hostile takeover were valid, wouldn't the logical response be to stay involved and work to regain influence? Instead, their actions suggest less focus on the project's well-being and more on frustration over contributing significant effort for minimal reward, while using their roles to push personal or political agendas.