These are my thoughts on the matter:
I applaud the employees that pushed back and have spoken out. You guys/gals Rock!! Thank you so dang much!!!
To Andy Yen, you obviously have no flipping clue who your actual customers are. Your views are incompatible with what I thought Proton was. I don't care how inconsequential of a decision you thought it was. That attitude over anything, especially security!?, is the exact opposite of what I thought Proton was when I signed up in 2020. I especially did not expect something like this when I became a buisness level subscriber in 2022. For me to continue using the services of Proton, you need to resign from Proton in any and all capacity.
Furthermore to Proton as an entity. Any and all who shared in this kind of mentality and disregard needs to be scrutinized and removed if necessary. Don't be crazy about it, but you know who NEEDS to go I think.
Look, we all are seeing that AI is here to stay. And it has gotten incredible at coding if I am to believe what I have read. The world is abruptly changing, but that is why now more that ever we need you to move as securely as you possibly can. Yes that still means using every tool at your disposal, but with the utmost concern and scrutiny supporting security and privacy. Even the crazy conspiracy/science fiction would never happen stuff, we're counting on you guys not being susceptible to it. We want privacy and security, not features and shinn-shi-curity.
If that is not the company Proton is striving to be, I will be taking my business elsewhere. I expect many others will be doing so as well. Imagine the fash.crud on top of all this. Don't know why I was sticking around truthfully.
Something like that, yes. Need to figure out a way so people who know what they're talking about have a voice.
If simple majority at my job made decisions, they'd still be editing python2 directly in production.
That's where concepts like rational authority come in handy.
For example:
the coop votes on who is in what role. People explain their education, credentials, or experience, and the coop determines who should have authority over which roles. They are then responsible for the choices pertinent to that role because they are likely the most qualified to decide them.
If somebody disagrees with the role holder's decisions then they can challenge it and get the coop to vote on it, but that causes a lot of tension and scrutiny so you'd have to be sure you're challenging for legitimate reason lest you make a fool of yourself. Generally the role holder is left to make decisions because the coop has entrusted them to do so, and they're likely the best person for that role. But it also allows accountability if they make poor decisions.
Right. I think there's an unavoidable risk in that someone's political skills can carry them further than their practical skills would justify. Like I've known a lot of people at work who make solid engineering decisions, but aren't as well liked as the suck ups.