My questions come from the fact that you, and others from Gitlab, are coming out of the woodwork in groups in response to public negativity and trying to play it cool, eg "wanna".
At least to me, it feels hollow, just like your response right now. It makes me think that Gitlab knew that there was going to be a backlash, and only sent your team out to mitigate damages. "There is no such thing as bad publicity" sort of deal.
If Amazon did the same thing you were doing right now, everyone would be up in arms.
It is the feedback from you all that is responsible for us rolling back the ToS and reconsidering our approach to this. My job, genuinely, is to relay concerns back to the people who make decisions like this. Sid has said in another comment that he wasn't expecting praise, but didn't expect the backlash to be this bad. If they were I really wish they would've given me a heads-up
I think you're reading too far into it. GitLab announced something and received a ton of backlash for it, so they are understandably trying to minimize damage.
It was more than an announcement. They cutoff access to gitlab and broke automated workflows. It shows that they don't know their customer base that well if they were willing to do that. Surely they knew they'd break automated workflows?
So, either they don't care that they broke those workflows when they made this change, or they didn't know that the workflow breakage would be bad. Both are shitty and implies a lack of understanding of their core user base. So, sending customer reps out like they are now screams to me that gitlab really only cares about presentation.
At least to me, it feels hollow, just like your response right now. It makes me think that Gitlab knew that there was going to be a backlash, and only sent your team out to mitigate damages. "There is no such thing as bad publicity" sort of deal.
If Amazon did the same thing you were doing right now, everyone would be up in arms.