Don't be disingenuous. That's a ridiculous and awful comparison and you know it. You should be ashamed.
I'm absolutely not being disingenuous. As I said, I am -in fact- not making a comparison between the situation with Mozilla and my hypothetical statement.
As I stated, I'm illustrating the general point that it often pays to keep track of when an entity has wronged you so you can weigh their current attempts at reconciliation against their history of wrongs.
Remember also that I was replying to the following statement:
> This kind of negativity is really common on HN and it makes me sad. ... "This group of people did something I don't like, and then they changed their mind and stopped doing it. But rather than being happy about fixing their mistake, I'm going to keep criticizing them for making the mistake in the first place."
I address the author's misconceptions in the first 'graph of my reply.
I pointed to and accounted for everything in my original comment and the follow-on comment.
When did I deny that anything I brought up in my original topic should be brought up? That's not what's going on here.
You appear to be claiming that -despite my repeated assertions to the contrary- I compared poor corporate governance to spousal abuse in my original comment.
I didn't.
I don't know how much clearer I can make this for you.
Edit: I remembered an old comment that I wrote a while back that explains how I feel about writing and how I try to structure my writing. [0] Maybe this might make things clearer for you.
To save you a click, I'll quote it inline:
"The world would be a far better place if fewer people would read between the lines of a given statement, and more people would make a habit of carefully parsing statements that others make.
When one writes words for general consumption, it's oh so tiresome to front-load one's writing with a bevy of disclaimers and preemptive clarifications. You will inevitably fail to include one clause or another, causing someone, somewhere to successfully misunderstand your words.
It's better to write exactly what you mean, as clearly as you are able, and -when writing for capable adults- trust that your audience is capable adults who know how to read what has been written and know not to infer meaning in inappropriate places."
> "This group of people did something I don't like, and then they changed their mind and stopped doing it. But rather than being happy about fixing their mistake, I'm going to keep criticizing them for making the mistake in the first place."
You mistake negativity for the keeping of and referring to a tally sheet.
You would -no doubt- find little to object to in the following hypothetical statement:
"I'm still dreadfully concerned about my abusive spouse. My spouse has backtracked on the terribly bad policy of random bouts of unfocused rage followed by sporadic, intense emotional and physical violence directed toward my person. Good on my spouse for backtracking, but I still remember the long-standing pattern of similar behavior in our relationship. This pattern saddens and worries me. I'm still strongly considering walking out the door. I wish my spouse the best, but I'm fairly certain that I cannot trust my spouse and that my spouse does not have my best interests at heart."
Please note carefully that I'm not comparing poor corporate governance to spousal abuse.
I am -however- making the point that it pays to remember when people or companies fail to behave in a way that indicates that they even try to have your interests at heart. A momentary shift in strategy or behavior often fails to either turn into a lasting habit, or happens far too late to undo past harms.
If you allow yourself to get strung along by the latest olive branch, without considering the history of the entity making the offer in order to judge the offer's sincerity, you're gonna get played, time after time, after time.