Interesting. For projects that don't need a "community" we've been using Amazon CodeCommit. We don't like to use Github anymore because of the politics there. Example: We had a project involving software filters that included this sentence in the description: > Phase is related to time, but a pure time delay does not involve any phase shift. A pure time delay or "group delay" is constant with frequency. Phase shift v…
I find that github's point of view on those problems are very hard to understand. For example, I once read a github's blog complaints that they don't have enough black, women leaders in github company. But if they really think all races/genders are equal, why they care about how many percent of leaders are non-white, or women?
- Race, gender, sexual orientation, disability etc. do not generally affect an individual's skill as an employee
- People from certain groups are under-represented in the industry
- Under-representation generally reflects an underlying problem somewhere, because one would expect various groups to be represented broadly in line with wider society
- One of the problems that can cause under-representation is an existing bias in an industry, which can discourage other members of a group
- One of the approaches to solving this is to help ensure that those groups feel comfortable in the industry
- One of the approaches to helping them feel comfortable is to ensure that communities are inviting, open-minded, and aware that things they say or do may upset or discourage other people, even though they are do not find those things offensive themselves.
It's about observing a trend which seems wrong for various reasons, and attempting to help solve it. I don't doubt for a second that many people go completely overboard on this issue, but outright rejecting any attempt at using, say, gender-neutral language in open-source projects just seems to go completely in the other direction.