I still stand by what I said about Core: there are structural and cultural problems. You did a thorough job on documenting the various things people did and said, much of which really does give off a bad look. So basically I agree with you that Zhao was fast-tracked to maintainer through the Newbery/Brink network despite thin contribution numbers, while genuinely prolific outsiders like Atack were left unfunded and sidelined. That said, the article mixes documented facts with some shaky claims and your own interpretations. The structural case, that a tight network held concentrated informal power, is convincing. Where it strains is the slide from sequence to design and correlation to causation. Examples of shaky claims and interpretations: [SHAKY] The same funders financed both Optech and Brink "in sequence" as if by design — funder overlap is documented, but the implied intent isn't. [INTERP] Optech's "political function" as characterized by the Steve Lee "healing process" quote.