> It seems like the main reaction is about Zig's name being used for WASIX promotion/a 3rd party trying to exert control over Zig development
Not exactly, the main issue we have with this thing is that it's a process that in the blink of an eye had multiple Zig contributors do duplicate work to implement a PR under implicit conditions that are completely skewed against the individuals.
The Zig project has spent a lot of time and effort in growing a community of contributors that is respectful and collaborative, and we don't appreciate startups trying to turn our community into Mad Max, especially when the same exact amount of money could have been used to move the endeavor forward in a more sustainable way.
It would have been trivial to post an offer to pay for have that PR implemented, interview a few candidates, pick one, offer a contract and have the PR delivered after the contractor maybe even takes a moment to polish it past "passing a test suite", on top of it being a nice starting point for a potential continued collaboration for eventual follow ups.
Instead we got duplicated efforts, stress and ultimately everything would have resulted in a rushed PR that then most probably would have been on us to clean up and maintain going forward.
Our way of leading development is more sustainable and one big reason why we have such a big contributor community.
We're not going to let startups burn our contributor community so that they can squeeze one extra tweet out of their moat-building efforts.
> It would have been trivial to post an offer to pay for have that PR implemented, interview a few candidates, pick one, offer a contract and have the PR delivered
What's trivial about posting an offer, interviewing candidates, picking one, and making a contract?
You're right, it's not trivial, I take that back. It requires some effort from the company that is interested in having the work done, but why put that effort when you can toss 5k in the ring and watch the best candidate self-select at the expense of everybody else who lost.
Thank you for the additional context. Is there any issue in principal with Zig supporting WASIX in the future (in a sustainable fashion)? Or is there any technical debate to just not support it?
Generally speaking we're open to support all kinds of platforms going forward.
We do have a roadmap and a series of priorities so adding new platforms is not our first priority right now.
That said, interacting with the Zig project is not just a matter of code. Software development, especially when it comes to open source, happens as a result of a delicate social process, and the impact on our contributor community does factor in our decision making.
Its true that many of those companies are also members of the Bytecode Alliance. But the W3C community group is where actual specs and standardization happen. That's where votes occur, and that's the Github organization in which they are published, and so forth.
Not exactly, the main issue we have with this thing is that it's a process that in the blink of an eye had multiple Zig contributors do duplicate work to implement a PR under implicit conditions that are completely skewed against the individuals.
The Zig project has spent a lot of time and effort in growing a community of contributors that is respectful and collaborative, and we don't appreciate startups trying to turn our community into Mad Max, especially when the same exact amount of money could have been used to move the endeavor forward in a more sustainable way.
It would have been trivial to post an offer to pay for have that PR implemented, interview a few candidates, pick one, offer a contract and have the PR delivered after the contractor maybe even takes a moment to polish it past "passing a test suite", on top of it being a nice starting point for a potential continued collaboration for eventual follow ups.
Instead we got duplicated efforts, stress and ultimately everything would have resulted in a rushed PR that then most probably would have been on us to clean up and maintain going forward.
Our way of leading development is more sustainable and one big reason why we have such a big contributor community.
We're not going to let startups burn our contributor community so that they can squeeze one extra tweet out of their moat-building efforts.