211–220 of 293 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just be careful if you don't share their political views. They just might go digging through everything you've ever said and every cause you've ever donated to and start a witch hunt. Even if you invented Javascript.
A litmus test of a great community is how they deal with people who are technically useful but socially reprehensible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just before Eich's donation, Obama was against gay marriage too and even said marriage was not a civil right: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/timeline-of-oba...
The difference is that Eich never actually apologized, or said his opinion changed. It was always, "Don't worry, Mozilla will be fine!" He argued that accepting bigotry is a form of inclusion. So, all signs point to him remaining a bigot.
So, I agree with the X-parent saying it's wrong to kick someone out for supporting a popular and controversial political idea. It really isn't clear what the truly right answer is, and those same people doing the kicking will be holding "wrong" opinions in other areas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the person is toxic, and nothing will change that, get rid of them before any more damage is done. I could argue that even if they're 10x more productive, they will drive off far more than 10 contributors. But really you do it because it's the right thing to do.
The ultimate and delicious irony of your comment is that you endorse a behavior that is in and of itself toxic -- publicly crucifying somebody because you don't agree with their beliefs. This line of thinking is not only dangerous, it's downright disgusting.
Denying legal rights to a group of people is not compatible with Mozilla's mission or spirit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ultimate and delicious irony of your comment is that you endorse a behavior that is in and of itself toxic -- publicly crucifying somebody because you don't agree with their beliefs. This line of thinking is not only dangerous, it's downright disgusting.
So, would you accept a known racist in your community?
If the project owner is a known racist, should they accept a pro-equality person into their project?
Are you arguing that people should close off their communities to people with differing opinions, or are you arguing that people should close off their communities to people who you personally disagree with?
If it is the former, then you are short-sighted and petty, and if it is the latter, then YOU are what is wrong with the open-source world.
One of the major ideas behind the hacker ethic and the open-source collaborative ideal is that ANYONE skilled enough can contribute to projects, get their ideas heard, and improve the community effort. No amount of fascist and self-flagellating political bullying will make your walled-garden alternative a better idea than a truly all-inclusive community.
Yes, If a contributor spouts their political opinions on mailing lists or developer forums and derails discussions, then it is obvious that they are having a negative impact on the community. But kicking out a well-behaved and technically adept contributor simply because you don't like their views? By doing that, you have made your project appear FAR worse to potential contributors than accepting contributions from a "known racist" ever could.
The REAL "toxic people" in a community are those who try to get skilled and reasonable contributors thrown out because of childish political quibbles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the person is toxic, and nothing will change that, get rid of them before any more damage is done. I could argue that even if they're 10x more productive, they will drive off far more than 10 contributors. But really you do it because it's the right thing to do.
The ultimate and delicious irony of your comment is that you endorse a behavior that is in and of itself toxic -- publicly crucifying somebody because you don't agree with their beliefs. This line of thinking is not only dangerous, it's downright disgusting.
Lol, didn't take you long to become a hypocrite on that one!
But seriously, "someone" and "CEO of a major corporation that relies on its good image" are different things. We rightly hold them to different standards. Holding unpopular (and exclusionary) political beliefs is incompatible with leading a company like Mozilla.
The Perl 6 development team is generally good-natured and work to be pleasant to each other and newcomers. http://perl6.org/
Talent off the charts. Very nice people, and very supportive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I am the embodiment of logic and reason in a world where nepotism reigns. Except the nepotism isn't derived from hereditary privilege or income; it is derived from a particularly virulent philosophy that is not rooted in reality. Also, I am an Indian-American male, second generation. Please don't speak for me when you have no idea how it feels to be a minority in the US. I'm not some mascot you can parade around…
Would you work at a company where your boss doesn't think Indians should be allowed to marry? Despite donating to campaigns to outlaw it, he promises it won't affect your job.
That doesn't stop me from achieving my goals. [0]