Wasn’t sure how exactly to raise my concern here, but I feel it’s important to point out why I was so eager to find a competitor to roll20.
A good example of the concern I have is well-described here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZJHAywQFm0
To be clear on my stance, it’s not that I think the refused party in this video were entitled to get what they want or anything like that. It’s the indication of roll20 leadership valuing diversity for diversity’s sake instead of meritocracy. Had they just said that they weren’t interested in the idea at the time and ended it there, I doubt I would have even considered transitioning.
As a web developer, I can tell that the architecture of Astral tabletop is well engineered and definitely has the potential to easily out-perform roll20 on many fronts.
I want to continue to support this product and it would ease my concerns if the leadership on this project would provide a statement somewhere of a commitment to meritocracy.
I’d like to know that the people you decide to work with are there because you value their work and not because of what demographic they happen to fall in.
If you don’t agree, I’m perfectly fine with that as well. In fact, you’ll have saved me some time investment and will be rid of someone you probably won’t like very much anyway. Win/win! I’m also open to changing my mind on the subject if the arguments are strong enough. I definitely prefer to be wrong than ignorant.