Ah, I see the issue. This isn’t about whether individual humans personally vote on Tom’s behavior. Rather, the community values are already established by a community process, and what we are doing is gauging the degree to which Tom has adhered to those values. By Aumann’s Agreement, we can only disagree here if we either disagree on how modus ponens and logic works, or if we disagree on the premises. Here are those premises again:
- Building weapon systems does not put people first. This follows because weapon systems kill people.
- Building weapon systems does not entail working on Nix projects for the public benefit. Indeed, it doesn’t entail working with Nix at all.
- Building weapon systems does not entail excellence in software. A famous example taught in software-engineering courses concerns the Patriot missile failure, whose root cause was incorrect software and faulty preconditions.
- Building weapon systems actively reduces the diversity of the community. As noted earlier in this thread, maintainers are leaving the project, which statistically reduces diversity; additionally, weapon systems reduce population, which also statistically reduces diversity.
- Building weapon systems does not inspire trust. In general, a weapon makes one into a danger to themselves and everybody around them; folks tend not to trust danger.
- Building weapon systems does not bring prestige to one’s employer. To this day, folks still have sour opinions over anybody who profited from selling cars, computers, soft drinks, clothing, or cars to the Nazis.
If you agree with any of these preconditions, then by modus ponens you ought to agree that building weapons systems is not congruent with Nix community values. I happen to agree with all of them, but that’s merely the strongest such stance; a weaker stance should also find Tom’s behavior lacking.