I bit of background: When I was working in my previous company I came up with an idea to extract all some generic functionality from the different projects and create open source library (MIT) from them - the source code was mainly implemented by me and my former colleague for the company. The library itself was build and maintained by me and it is released under the name of my former employer.
Now I'm not part of the company anymore and I have a lot of new things to add to that library, as well as the better infrastructure (automatic builds and deployment) -- now, mu former employer does not care about the repo nor open source (that was one of reasons I quit) and I still have access, so I can quietly push the code to the repo and release it... however, as they don't care about the open source community I was more wondering about forking it, rebranding it and release it under my name...
I know, that MIT license allows that if you link the authors (related Merge, rebrand, relicense projects ), however I'm not exactly sure whether it is not a "dick move" from me.
What would you do if you were at my place? Keep updating the repo and releasing it under former employer name, or forking it and rebranding it?
EDIT: as pointed out, this question can be rephrased to: What are the cultural pros and cons of each approach?