←back to thread

465 points impish9208 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.27s | source
Show context
gpm ◴[] No.42669032[source]
Huh, the injunction against "blocking, disabling, or interfering with WPEngine’s and/or its employees’, users’, customers’, or partners’ (hereinafter “WPEngine and Related Entities”) access to wordpress.org;" [0] is still in effect right? There's nothing on the docket saying otherwise...

These contributors are "partners" under the common meaning of the word right? After all the tweet [1] that Matt links to from his own blog post [2] says

> We are committed to working with Joost, Karim, and other respected voices in the community to ensure WordPress’s future is stronger than ever.

That sounds like a partnership to me.

[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43...

[1] https://x.com/wpengine/status/1870242287218790849

[2] https://wordpress.org/news/2025/01/jkpress/

replies(2): >>42669104 #>>42669177 #
that_guy_iain ◴[] No.42669104[source]
That does not sound like a partnership at all. It sounds like an intent to work with the community.
replies(1): >>42669122 #
gpm ◴[] No.42669122[source]
Is "committed to working with" not a subset of the class of "partners" in your vernacular? What do you think is required to be "partners"?

And it names the specific members of the community, Joost, Karim, who subsequently had their accounts deactivated, not just the community at large.

replies(2): >>42669484 #>>42672767 #
1. that_guy_iain ◴[] No.42672767[source]
In my vernacular, a partnership is actually working together. Talk is cheap, lots of people say they're committed to stuff but aren't really.