Thanks for your thoughts, but the idea behind the call to delete github is just to build a more decentalized web and infrastructure. I don't think this is extreme as it is the basic idea of freedom itself and I don't get it why so many projects jump on this train as it is driving in the complete wrong direction. Software itself may be libre for now, but what about the future? And that's the point counting as Microsoft just pretends to "love open-source". They just do the opposite. There are small steps right done!
Yes, I don't think Microsoft itself is doing all of this intentional or there is some "evil masterplan behind". But it is about money and the good people there have no further chance when it comes to this point. And we also don't have any further chance when it comes to this point as the projects itself. So better getting away from centralized infrastructure and some kind of cloud-services. Better getting away from some false illusions. You may disagree me here and I don't want to be agreed here. Perhaps I'm completely wrong in my thoughts? Just have to look at Gnome for now. They host their own infrastructure, good thing. But they already make false compromises and that's the point I'm talking about. An example as picture below:
Same with the examples regarding F-Droid I have given above and the reasoning why exactly Replicant had given up to distribute the application as integral component. Same with all the flaws given in the wiki like emulators, Chrome / Chromium and Rust!
It's not that Microsoft / Github will took all free, libre projects overnight, it's about getting dependent on centralized infrastructure more and more overtime. It's a long run! And same with projects on Qt as the company behind is also defined over income and money, not about principles and ideals. Where is the fork? And what bout the future itself? Is it extreme having thoughts about this? Well, there are enough warnings. And I don't tend to listen / follow some conspiracy theories. But being dependent on centralized infrastructure can't be good. Nobody needs to agree with me here at this point, but I think it is just to simple at all describing this as "extreme". 
We could "remove" those freedom-flaws, but being honest: How long would this be possible? And is it really worth the time to do it again and again with every new version of Gnome and KDE Plasma for example? How many people have interest in doing this and what about people just giving up? The (peer)group gets smaller afterwards. So yes: Projects like Draco Linux and OpenRC are "free as in freedom" and I don't think this will ever change. But their (peer)group is not that kind of big and what about the point where Microsoft have some more requirements to the users, changing the way to address and use Github? When the projects mentioned just quit, because first their usergroup is not that kind of big and their developer(s) don't have the possibility to host a complete own infrastructure? There are enough examples about those abandoned projects, even when searching through the AUR some of them are easy to be found and the PKGBUILD is just malfunctional because there is no further source-code to load, nothing to modify. The reasoning: The project died, a very silent death. Comparing this to systemd: It is also hosted on Github, but there is enough interest behind and also enough financial interest itself to build own repositories and infrastructure or just staying there with renewed requirements from Microsoft.
It is the same with hardware and in fact all starts here with the basic problem: If there is not enough interest, free and libre hardware is only done afterwards by enthusiasts. Most people don't even think about this, using UEFI and every modern machine with the promise of even more "power to compute". While producing even more garbage, we have already knowledge that Linux (without GNU) is following also this course overtime and the kernel itself is implementing just more and more proprietary definitions and blobs. That's the point: Pragmatism is the wrong way and it is also done just because we are too convenient (talking about the free software-community in a whole) accepting those minor flaws. But a minor flaw as problem can become to a major flaw overtime. We have enough mentions within the wiki and just to point at Mozilla Firefox itself as a project: Pretending to protect freedom and awareness of security and privacy, but just doing the opposite. Minor flaws can be technical faults overtime in regard to freedom and privacy: Removing Zeitgeist and geoclue for example (Gnome), but what about the point where those optional dependencies become essentials? Afterwards another search has to start how to get rid of freedom flaws. Getting back to Firefox there is even nothing left because Rust is essential to compile newer versions.
The point is very clear: In a long run, the "freedom of choice" could disappear more and more. Only some bigger projects are left and that's completely inacceptable for me. So I write down thoughts and warnings! I will never enforce anyone to agree with me, even better to disagree and in the end being on the wrong way as it is not that kind of sinister. But until today we just can see the opposite, with all of this and I fear this is just the beginning as the concepts of "free, libre software" and "free, libre hardware" is so marginalized to this point, that is just summarized with some kind of open-source. Projects like Libreboot or Replicant are just a good demonstration and it is better for them having their own place as it is here the same with Hyperbola. So "we" can have the chance being small but interested and focussed. The warnings are the same because we are on little islands. And as much F-Droid started being some good alternative, as much they've failed this point with pragmatism in regard to applications in the repositories with access to proprietary services, proprietary resources and even though no source-code at all. We have also to think about ethics - meaning "we" as global community into "free, libre software" - and not only some kind of following the common sentenced "free as in freedom".
And when looking for the next years to come: Linux (without GNU) could vanish into the "cloud". You can rely on technology moving in the direction of capital and when much of the capital is distributed to / through the military it's not surprising that UEFI restricted boot is becoming the norm, DRM is becoming an integral part of the web, and "free, libre software" is being described as "piracy" in a common sense. If we stay passive, make some pragmatic choices, we (talking about all of us) could have to pay a very high price for this. And again: I hope I'm just wrong about it. I hope this is just some sinister picture out of my mind and I can lay down this one as some dystopian imagery! The "free, libre soft- and hardware" have got no further lobby and when trying to get this, sooner or later the project will get onto catastrophic sideways or just become more or less the opposite of free. It is all about capital, money and profit to get some kind of "lobby" and I think calling the warnings about this "extreme" is just wrong because it marginalize the positioning as it also helps to support simplified views about hosting-platforms like Github - not even speaking about the criticism regarding Github long before bought through Microsoft as this was also ignored by many. Github is not the friendly supporter of "open-source" or "free software", it is about a complete business-model and making money out of the data hosted itself. Getting into this cannot end good as we all know enough others in the web / Internet itself. 
Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!
Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices: For a life of every being full with peace and kindness, including diversity and freedom. Capitalism is destroying our minds, the planet itself and the universe in the end!
