Ah, ok. That exlains it. It’s really a shitty move. I guess no CEO or other high up manager in the US would do this differently. What a shit

That’s not union busting, is it? I understand the leadership problems, but we were talking about union busting specifically

I was speaking of union bustion actions in WMF. I already know about these law firms

including those laid off, since some are still hoping to find jobs elsewhere at the WMF, and others are depending on severance pay

Am I too european to understand this? If they “get jobs elsewhere at the WMF” this is not a layoff, is it? I know the US has nearly no worker protections, so maybe that makes it a layoff. Do they need to interview for these positions again?

If this were something other than Community Tech, maybe I could convince myself it’s all just a coincidence. But the WMF has been on a generally upward trajectory at avoiding decisions that will piss off the entire community. “Don’t disband CommTech” might as well be the "don’t mess with the pancreas"of WMF governance. The only explanation for the WMF doing this—not just reörganizing but outright laying off the team—is that they are so determined to prevent the union from becoming official that they are willing to risk the massive community blowback (which, from a corporate-brain point of view, is a greater downside than the five people left jobless).

That paragraph I don’t understand. Why is union busting the only explanation?

From one of the comments of that Reddit thread:

the union was apparently formed exactly 90 days prior to the layoff announcement; under california state law (where they are located) “a termination within 90 days of protected union activity creates a rebuttable presumption that the termination was illegal retaliation”

I think that is an interesting detail here, though I have not bothered to go through the sources for this.

Where they actually fired? From skimming your linked article it was more of a restructuring, moving them to different positions. The restructuring might be ill advised, though I could not find real information about any connection to the union topic, besides someone from the community claming that, without further information on that connection.

Do we have any direct signs of union busting? It seems these law firms do other things for WMF.

For proxmox on a VPS beware: Some hosters are using a kind of virtualization, that is more like a container instead of a VM. This means, that if you need kernel access (like changing active modules) you will fail. Proxmox probably won’t run on such a VPS.

Also: A VPS is already virtualized. Running nested VMs (some VMs on your Proxmos VM/VPS) will hurt the performance. Better stick to containers on a VPS.

Not federating at all would be a shame IMO. I’m really exited on this feature for git forges

Being able to self host a git forge was always possible, even before forgejo. Besides the gitea controversy I thought the federation to be the real killer feature.

So I guess I have to wait a bit more for the federation.

OOTL Wasn’t there something about forgejos capabilities to federate? I had the impression, that it would go the fediverse route with many interacting instances. Then everyone can make their own rules. There are many reason to moderate repos. So why is this such a big thing (if forgejo federates as I remembered from the back of my head)?