I am feeling a lot more inclined to investing in other projects at this time. (Projects that nevertheless include all the major points that initially gave me hope for investing in Framework: Repairability, Focus on Open Source and Linux, and a degree of care).
Now, FW has a very different beginning than other hardware companies, and I feel that there is an aspect related to their roots that limits the degree of care they are able to implement as a company (even if the individuals forming the company are perfectly in agreement with this sort of care).
I would like to define what I mean by care, and how and what about FW’s origin I mean when I say that it limits its care.
Care I mean as the amount of work done to protect from harm those things that we value. The things we want to protect and see thriving. What are those things? At the base of the common human agreement, there are pretty obvious things, that are nevertheless immensely important, and constantly abused and taken for granted in companies of a certain size and power. Things like nature, our planet, worthy lives for those that live here. Respect for a common, shared space and its inhabitants I will repeat that is not a trivial ask, and that most companies blatantly disregard the milisecond their power is at stake.
But this super broad base is perhaps just the place where we can all meet without much considerations for specific alignments on how such a reality is built. From this common base that is easy to agree on, we negotiate a variety of approaches for defining how our care resources should be distributed.
I am grateful that FW shows obvious signs that they are ready to deploy resources that protect and cultivate parts of our common space that we value. They clearly are wanting to engage on some of this work of preservation when dealing with our platforms for collaboration (FOSS) and their potential for liberating and empowering humans, and when dealing with our shared material footprint (repairability). Unfortunately I see their hands tied and their mouths shut when the platforms for collaboration that they are wanting to nurture happen to be dependent of a bigger, deeper collaboration among humans, one that happens to be some of the present battlefronts where humanity is debating how can we exist together in a current world of extremely difficult inequality. Our collaboration to make software of course inherits plenty of the complications that the “main issue” of human collaboration proposes, and in a time where the worthy lives of many are at stake, it’s something that, if ignored, leaves a very obvious trace.
“The care that we are promoting ends here. We no longer have an intention to engage in the caring work after this line”
In the case of Framework, their line was acknowledging that DHH might not be the best community member to partner with, as would be anyone that defends the exclusion of a part of a population for the sake of a cultural purity, or a suposed race. Their inability to engage on a constructive conversation about how the views of community members in positions of power can be problematic for the community means a portion of this community is going to not be actively protected by FW. Even if people at FW end up responding to situations of direct harm later on, leaving this topic unattended without acknowledging that there is a real possibility for harm leaves FW in a strange place.
Now I think the reason for this strange line has to do with FW’s foundation as a venture capital funded company. I think that the undisclosed truth about shareholder centered enterprises, beyond there being good intentions, beyond there being a nice aim and a nice project and plenty of good work. Shareholders, at the end of the day, optimize for profit. Shareholders optimize for growth. At what expense? At the expense of some of the care that the company is able to cultivate. I think that Omarchy having a lot of attention has meant that catering to the possible customers there is much more beneficial to FW in terms of growth than engaging in the conversation that their community has spent hours and hours laying down across different channels (sometimes more eloquently and sometimes less).
This is not an accusation to FW of being ethical “only to the point that it doesn’t affect sales”. I only know the goals that they state themselves. In their last response, their closest attempt to engaging in this discussion is point 3, saying
“Before we sponsor an organization, we will continue to research and confirm that as they currently exist, they uphold appropriate community standards and are structurally set up for that to continue to be the case.”
We cannot apply this to Omarchy, as this is not an official sponsorship which is what is addressed in here. But if we were to apply that rule to Omarchy, I think they need to establish very clearly what are appropriate community standards, so that the community can effectively understand where is their line of care. When is a community not benefitial to their goals. Additionally I think FW needs to address Omarchy and DHH. Even if it is to say that they disagree with the case brought forth by the concerned members of the community.
Not addressing this is effectively affirming none of this is FW’s business, and as long as they don’t address it, everyone should understand that Framework’s business cares up to the point that they decide to engage with, and nothing more than that.
As a personal observation, the message that this leaves for potential customers, and potential business partners is a weird one: One that we have seen deployed “at scale” by major corporations. I don’t mean that FW is set to become an empire. I think that their growth will benefit an entire ecosystem of other projects, some of them more careful than others, and that they will keep having confrontations with their community. When these confrontations happen, they will decide whether to engage or not, and as a result, loose and gain customers, and become more or less relevant in the struggles of care we are all involved in negotiating.
I think I have spent enough time trying to engage with the community through posts here, at times slightly obsessively devoting attention to it, but always spending time reading and observing trying to form an opinion about this case, maybe the first time that I engaged with a technology company on a political stance. I don’t discard revisiting this topic later on, but generally my engagement is now much lower, both because of the (not inspiring) answers on several occasions from FW, and from my own ability to keep caring about it. It’s been nice, and I hope to find Framework again in the future, engaging deeply with its community, not dismissing any concern, even if it means separating themselves from potentially strategic business partners. I won’t invest in this company until I see that their commitment to their community’s concerns extends beyond their business goals. Which I recognize is a weird thing to ask to a company with shareholders, but hey, I am in basically asking for an open discussion, not police control over FW decisions, I think it is due time for businesses to involve their stakeholders more openly in their decision-making 
Sorry for the rant, I am quite happy to keep talking over private messages to discuss this. Have a nice day everyone
