> both started the argument with the terrible first reply and escalated the argument with this accusation.
Why was the first reply terrible? They stated the policy and closed the PR. They did so professionally and calmly, and the author immediately threw a fit. Then the MDN person dug into the project more and found specific flaws and pointed them out as further evidence for why the policy (which they already cited and which should have been enough) exists.
> The person from MDN was saying factually incorrect stuff
Do you have specific examples?
> Most of the issue seems to be a systemic problem at Mozilla though.
Frankly, reading through the thread it feels like you started with this as the assumption and had cast the MDN maintainer as the bad guy before the exchange had even started. Mozilla has lots of problems and I'm the first to point them out, but this exchange doesn't demonstrate any of them—it just demonstrates how hard it is in open source to deal with entitled aspiring contributors.
Why was the first reply terrible? They stated the policy and closed the PR. They did so professionally and calmly, and the author immediately threw a fit. Then the MDN person dug into the project more and found specific flaws and pointed them out as further evidence for why the policy (which they already cited and which should have been enough) exists.
> The person from MDN was saying factually incorrect stuff
Do you have specific examples?
> Most of the issue seems to be a systemic problem at Mozilla though.
Frankly, reading through the thread it feels like you started with this as the assumption and had cast the MDN maintainer as the bad guy before the exchange had even started. Mozilla has lots of problems and I'm the first to point them out, but this exchange doesn't demonstrate any of them—it just demonstrates how hard it is in open source to deal with entitled aspiring contributors.