You're really missing the point. For example, this story about the developer isn't about harrassment, it's about the complete misunderstanding of other projects and how they work.
umm... my point is, you're free to ignore someone, tell them to go away, not use their software, etc. you can do whatever you want with your project (within reasonable limits, obviously. i would normally not add a qualifier, but you seem like a picky fellow). and they can do whatever they want (same qualifier)
This is a very problematic approach for developers who are looking to commit to a library for years.
In the least, it leads to extremely inefficient resource usage as you have to constantly rewrite everything, or just abandon your app.
So, if we go back in history, what could developers do when choosing their libraries? They would need some kind of assurance that it's not going to change a lot. Perhaps a foundation with rules that require voting and a large majority to change guiding principles and rules.
We need predictability in software development, like we do need in other industries and avenues of life. It is very very valuable in real tangible terms.
If they develop an OPEN library that's meant to be used on more than one environment, by making the library closed to GNOME, you're betraying everyone that chose the library because of it's openness.
It's basically a shot in the foot since the DE itself is useless without apps that work on it. If devs (which is not even improbable) start leaving GTK they will feel the pain even more.
