Easy to write a summary that would risk being banned for ;) But that basically says it all, the user hostile and insulting behavior and his vendetta against projects he hallucinates at somehow being hostile to him - completely delusional - makes the project something that never should be on anyone's hardware, especially not something security relevant. That guy would have root.
But best to watch the video, there are a plethora of sources.
Last time I wrote something like that here someone else from GrapheneOS accused me of being unfair, since he is out by now - now I see the old maintainer writing in the name of the foundation and that he still commits to the project.
How would GrapheneOS target a specific person? You said "that guy would have root." To be frank, I do not think that's true.
He is definitely not "out by now." He said he would step down, but I am under the impression that gesture (and the original Twitter post) was retracted. He's still listed as a director with the Canadian Business Registry record on GrapheneOS Foundation:
The GrapheneOS project, and its sub-projects, are a net positive. You can dislike any individual person or aspect of the project and still take from its success. "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
That said, you and I might just have differing views on the project and its management. I feel the project itself should be assessed/characterized on its security-focused initiatives first and foremost.
To make it short and to be agreeable: I think it's been unproductive for Micay to spend time addressing attacks on himself or on GrapheneOS, and I agree that it has tarnished his public reputation.
To express my more complete opinion: I do not think that Micay’s responses are endangering the GrapheneOS project to the extent that users should be concerned about its security. I don't believe he has unrestricted access ("has root") or that his involvement poses any risk to GrapheneOS' users. Instead, I think his participation has been crucial to the technical achievements of this security-focused project. Micay appears to be technically adept. It's his signature to write in complete detail in response to a technical matters. His other signature, though, is marked by tension/escalation that derails the technical conversation. I wish he would moderate the less constructive aspects of his engagement style.
I think this GH conversation summary looks like this:
The community is in need. MLS is shutting down, and they're insisting on a timeline during which the community must coordinate. Micay is offering that the GrapheneOS project has a viable arrangement. (1) He discusses that GrapheneOS Foundation has already invested time on a plan and has already received funding and are willing to share their funding. (2) He also discusses consideration for the quality of data submissions that could benefit from other GrapheneOS projects. (3) He discusses that Mozilla might have legal hurdles in the way of simply handing off the existing data.
Someone objects to using data based on hardware attestation, and Micay addresses the concern with care, and mentions that third-party OSes (not GrapheneOS) could provide data; he directly names Google and Apple, which would significantly cover "all users." That same someone objects that attested data would compete with anonymity, and Micay replies with a strategy that accounts for privacy/anonymization with configurable levels (so as not to throw away unattested data, but still maintain privacy).
Then somebody tells him his grammar is bad a slings an XKCD comic at him in mockery. The grammar was correct, but I understood the way in which the somebody misinterpreted it as "its." The comic jab is silly because Mozilla is literally shutting down the service, due to patent (troll?) hazard, and Micay is offering a solution to work around the known problems such as that.
Finally, both Marvin Weisfeld and Micay have an exchange about technical details relating to implementation. I didn't find either response to be technically complete. Micay diverts the technical conversation and launches an accusation, and I felt it had no place in the discussion. Marvin ended the discussion right there, and I think that ended the opportunity for escalation.
But best to watch the video, there are a plethora of sources.
Last time I wrote something like that here someone else from GrapheneOS accused me of being unfair, since he is out by now - now I see the old maintainer writing in the name of the foundation and that he still commits to the project.