If someone presents me with an document proposing their right and ability to punch me in the throat whenever they desire, it’s either, and then when I protest state that it’s ”just a joke bro”, it’s either
1. a bad joke I’m not in on
2. A real and serious proposition
Now, when the person making the proposal has a reputation for punching people in the throat, it’s very clearly not the former.
> We're all humans
No we’re not: one side is a massive corporation with a profit motive and no morals or personhood. They don’t get obfuscate their intent and escape criticism by foisting the actual submission onto some random dev. The devs in question are either implicit with this-in which case they deserve no sympathy, or they are not, and should realise they’re being used as sacrificial lambs. Neither case is reason to use kid-gloves.
> Technical grounds
This arguments is meaningless in this situation. The proposal is bad on fundamental intent grounds, technical arguments have nothing to do with it.
> Considered alternatives
Yeah here’s a considered alternative: Don’t do this. There we go, just as much justification and technical validity as the original proposal. Now, as I am reasonable, I will only accept counter arguments in the form of interpretive dance, performed in person, in 15 minutes time, in the sub-basement of my nearest Antarctic station. All other responses are rude and off topic.