Meta invited the admin of Fosstodon for a roundtable to discuss their upcoming fediverse platform
LollerCorleone@kbin.social to 
Fediverse@kbin.social – 111 points – 
fosstodon.org
And got a straightforward no as a response XD
LollerCorleone@kbin.social to Fediverse@kbin.social – 111 points –
What does it mean to discuss free and open software off the record?
Only correct response to Meta.
I can see Meta going ahead with their plan, and everyone blocking them. They will then start bad-mouthing the Fediverse because it's never their fault.
I mean... realistically, why would that be their fault if they were to start a fedi instance and everyone else blocked them?
Because of their historical track record?
Well if everyone defederated the message would be clear: Meta is unwelcome here. Their following press releases would probably spin a very different narrative about immature tech and privacy concerns.
What else do you expect them to do? Say "oh yeah I guess a bunch of guys on fedi say we are arseholes, so we must be"?
Badass response, thanks for sharing
Not sure if turning down an invitation to discuss is a good thing. You can always say no to the proposals after you have listened to them. Participate in discussions, but don't co-operate with them.
There's zero chance anything good would come out of this meeting anyway, and they wouldn't be able to talk about it due to NDAs, so why bother?
Meta chose to make it a closed meeting, not the dev.
Perhaps the problem was that it was not an open discussion, but an "off-the-records", private one. And, from a moral standpoint, small concessions can end up leading to a slippery slope.
@CorInABox
No perhaps. That was all the problem. It was a break of trust by the admins who attended this meeting, and then cannot do a lot to regain the trust since they cannot speak about the subject. Eben is unknown who attended meeting.
@LollerCorleone @kaladininskyrim
I don't have a problem with admins having discussions with Meta. I have a problem with those discussions being off the record or under NDA. We thrive on transparency. The secrecy is the problem.
I understand your point and was inclined to agree, up until it said off the record and confidential. Ohhhhhh, so THEIR privacy is important? They can kindly kick rocks and figure it out themselves, especially for free.
Interesting interaction. Certainly more direct than I'd be but hey that's okay. One piece of feedback for communicating here is to relay the mission and vision you're trying to build. It's indirectly stated here when he states what their objectives should be, but without clearly laying it out there, there's no way for any collaboration to occur.
And this is not to say collaboration with Meta is a good idea, but just overall anyone can't know how to work with you if they don't know what you're building towards.