Why? You're saying it was pushed. But actually the maintainers agreed. Further, the maintainers overlapped. Instead of acknowledging that it wasn't pushed because the maintainers overlapped you make up "anti-competitive" behaviour.

I work for a company where every year there is a mandatory refresher on anti competition laws / behaviour. The suggestion that this is done for malicious purposes is highly offensive, yet so easily stated. This without actually going into a lengthy and thorough explanation. I think you're failing to understand how offensive you're being towards these developers. So easily using very harsh words, so easily dismissing what anyone else says, plus what the developers said. Yet not actually proving any good proof for your statements.

> Why?

Because saying that they were separate groups implies a level of propriety to the decision that doesn't hold when the groups "overlap".

> You're saying it was pushed.

Am I? Where?

> But actually the maintainers agreed.

At the risk of repeating myself, this implies a level of propriety to the decision that doesn't hold when the maintainers are the same in each group.

> I work for a company where every year there is a mandatory refresher on anti competition laws / behaviour.

Didn't take, did it? Just for giggles, see if you can identify the common factor in these classes of anticompetitive behaviour:

  - Cartel price-fixing
  - Refusal to deal
  - Conspiracy to monopolise
  - Dividing territories
  - Regulatory capture

> I think you're failing to understand how offensive you're being towards these developers.

I don't. I also don't think they need you to defend them.