> professional

then pay him? I'd admit that this person didn't really contribute anything really worthy. But please do not require someone to be "professional" when you did not pay him a dime.

Unprofessional as in done by a person I wouldn't hire in his current mental state.

> hire him

So what you do mean is someone had to spend hundreds of hours maintaining some projects you've been using and also should have perfect personality and well behaved enough before you hire him?

I would prefer to avoid people who sabotage stuff and literally build bombs.

How was it hazardous or "outright dangerous"?

You see a build fail, you pin the previous version of that dependency, run the build again and go on with your life.

Asshole move? Sure. Hazardous and dangerous? Don't be dramatic.

There is a little bit of dissonance here. Microsoft, a multi billion dollar company who works with organizations such as ICE which routinely engages in human right abuses and causes sever suffering and harm to thousands of people who are already pretty vulnerable.

vs. an open source developer who’s work benefits companies like Microsoft who have no obligation to pay for that labor. And engages in a single industrial sabotage which causes minor disruptions, and harm which at most costs other developer some time and temporary frustrations.

I feel like we need some sense of relativity when we attribute nouns such as hazardous and dangerous here. Especially when we are talking about Microsoft.