Do you consider it a solution that if somebody doesn't like an OSS project's current direction, or contributor list, they could fork it and do whatever they want with the fork?
>I think the poster is holding a pretty untenable position but I'm trying to softball it, because I could be much harsher about it.
I don't understand how that position is untenable. It seems to be a meritocratic line of thought, IMO. There could be a problem with how "merit" is calculated? Or you believe that ideas, contributions which have merit are denied / ignored because of the gender/ethnicity of the contributor?
> Do you consider it a solution that if somebody doesn't like an OSS project's current direction, or contributor list, they could fork it and do whatever they want with the fork?
It can be, but is not a universal solution.
> It seems to be a meritocratic line of thought, IMO. There could be a problem with how "merit" is calculated?
A strictly meritocratic world is probably not one people actually want, but even accepting that... do we even have a well-structured and universally agreed-upon definition of merit? I submit we don't, for software.
>I think the poster is holding a pretty untenable position but I'm trying to softball it, because I could be much harsher about it.
I don't understand how that position is untenable. It seems to be a meritocratic line of thought, IMO. There could be a problem with how "merit" is calculated? Or you believe that ideas, contributions which have merit are denied / ignored because of the gender/ethnicity of the contributor?