41–50 of 341 posts
I'm actually impressed, from the first few lines I was expecting another social justice fueled witch hunt, but instead we have the exact opposite here.
I seemed to me that (all allegedly) someone was outed as into BDSM and was somehow treated unfairly. I think that certainly falls into the domain of liberal sexual identity politics.
Make no mistake, inclusion and diversity at all costs is the new "religious" standard. Your personal beliefs do not matter. You will conform or you will suffer. (Vote down, that's fine, but it's still true.)
I've started to mentally replace the words "inclusion and diversity" with "conformity" on certain places on the net.
Make no mistake, inclusion and diversity at all costs is the new "religious" standard. Your personal beliefs do not matter. You will conform or you will suffer. (Vote down, that's fine, but it's still true.)
I've started to mentally replace the words "inclusion and diversity" with "conformity" on certain places on the net.
To have tolerance, you cannot tolerate intolerance. It is maybe illogical, but necessary.
>> "The Gorean philosophy promoted by Larry is based on the principle that women are evolutionarily predisposed to serve men and that the natural order is for men to dominate and lead."
Even assuming this is Larry's philosophy, it is pretty much the same philosophy shared by many women & men in various conservative religious faiths, including branches of Christianity, Judaism, & Islam—only they add in the idea that it is divinely ordered. Are we now going to expel all who hold such religious beliefs?
I agree this philosophy is hard to swallow, but the commenter's point about religious belief is well made. Apart from the issue that this is in fact a widely-held belief I would suggest communities allow their members to hold any belief in private, as long as that belief is not in some way construed as a community value, and as long as that person does not act based on that belief during community interactions.
It's one of the simple facts of life that you pretty have to work with people who believe all kinds of things, and they have to work with you. Furthermore, we seem to have forgotten that it's even feasible to have good relationships and friendships with people we fundamentally disagree with.
In this context, if you're running an open source project, it's expected that people hold an even more varied spectrum of beliefs than would be the case in a traditional company. As long as members can professionally conduct themselves in that environment, firing them is not a productive solution. Presumably the person in question has pledged to uphold Drupal's community values and at first glance it looks like that pledge has not been broken.
Being unfamiliar with this, from the starting few paragraphs I thought "oh man, they have a white surpremacist developer or something and now there's a scandal, huh". Then I learnt that he was ousted because of his sex life. What the fuck? What does it matter to anyone what he does with other consenting adults in private?
In the same line, Brendan Eich. I completely disagree with his views on marriage of homosexuals, but disagree that it led him to have to quit his position at Mozilla Foundation.
Eich was CEO, though. It's a special position in any organization. The board can ask you to leave at any time if you seem to be a liability, and the mere optics of a PR issue can be enough. That's why CEOs often have such generous compensation packages in the event of involuntary termination.
It's worth noting that many of the objections are about private information being misused. Eich was actually outed from a donor list that was leaked. There's a lot of parallels here if the concern is about "doxxing" activities.
I also have a really hard time with the "but CEOs are different argument". So could being a Democrat in a red state be a liability? Republican in a blue state? Evangelical in a secular area? Atheist in a religious one? Scientologists? Mormons?
In other words, are we saying that only certain kinds of people can be CEOs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Allowing or organising a witch-hunt and irreparably damaging a career because you disagree with someone's sex life is "not a nice thing to do". Posting doxxed information across the internet, along with euphemistic insinuations that he is an irreparable pervert, attached to his real name, forever to show up as the first result when you Google him ... is "not a nice thing to do" Trying to hold your community leaders u…
All agreed upon. Still no reason to resort to a veiled version of public blackmail. Buytaert is wrong, there is really no doubt about that. But if you want to make a point you simply send the letter to its intended recipient and follow up on the threat to leave if you are ignored or unhappy with the outcome. If you want to increase the spectacle you do so publicly, with the direct result that Drupal gets hurt even fu…
I might agree with you if it were a call to resign or similar, but they aim at getting (to them very relevant) information that has been demanded in public (and I have to assume in private as well) before, without result, not necessarily at a reversal of the decision.
It convinces me Code Of Conduct are basically sticks that will not harm you when you are on the right side of them. Do communities needs sticks to be driven one sided way like cows? At this point it feels like they kind of defy their reason to be and are pretty misused.
My experience says that codes of conduct are written with the express desire of keeping all open source communities left-leaning. I've talked to many people about the matter and some of them say that open source is supposed to be left-leaning, and that those are its principles. That ignores that right-leaning users should also be able to benefit from open source values (privacy, for example) and contribute code, and…
You won't build an open minded community if its rules mandate righthink. Doesn't mean you can't try and protect people from the kind of stalking and abuse that has happened here.
It's a shame that we have to have more than "be professional and don't be a dick" as community guidelines, but if we have to might as well do it correctly.
In the same line, Brendan Eich. I completely disagree with his views on marriage of homosexuals, but disagree that it led him to have to quit his position at Mozilla Foundation.
Eich was CEO, though. It's a special position in any organization. The board can ask you to leave at any time if you seem to be a liability, and the mere optics of a PR issue can be enough. That's why CEOs often have such generous compensation packages in the event of involuntary termination.