Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

There are a lot of projects that are factored into small pieces with separate maintainership, where the project as a whole—or its "core"—might be corporate-sponsored; yet individual parts/plugins/connectors—including fairly-critical ones!—might turn out to be one person's hobby-project.

How many maintainers do you think the average Kafka connector has? The average Postgres extension? The average Redis or Nginx module? Etc.

These ecosystem components move the project-as-a-whole forward, and yet they don't necessarily need to be as "corporate" as the project-as-a-whole does to accomplish that. Even though, in the end, a corporation might use one of them, it won't really matter as long as nobody sees them doing so. (If they ever need to patch the un-corporate extension, though, they'll probably fork the thing and flense out all references to the original. I've seen that happen a lot, and done it a few times myself.)

> It's less bad that people sometimes got their feelings hurt than it is to institutionalize a means by which dissenting opinions are crushed under the rubric of “not nice”.

His point, as I take it, is that a "cancel culture" is antithetical to an open culture. I agree. Excluding someone due to tone, without warning or clear explanation of the violation, especially when it appears the content is a contested opinion, is bigoted censorship.

To steal the Paine quote ESR himself used, "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

The liberty to use strong rhetoric[0] in defense of ideas is what I see under attack by banning ESR from these discussions.

[0]: To my reading, the most inflammatory remarks he said on the mailing list are:

> With whatever moral authority I still have here, I say to all advocates of soi-disant "ethical" licensing not just "No" but "To hell with you and the horse you rode in on."

in the opening email for that thread and in his penultimate email:

> I am not fooled. You are mounting an ideological attack on our core principles of liberty and nondiscrimination. You will not succeed while I retain any ability to oppose this.

Compared to a typical rant from Torvalds this is pretty tame debate-speak.

Either way, to your statement about "the movement", I think it's important to keep in mind that a lot of what passes for hacker culture today is quite different from where those two hail from. How much overlap is there between the Tao of Programming and modern web development, for example?

Whether that's good, bad, or just a value-neutral observation is pretty much up to the beholder.

The thing about this hypothetical is that it's wildly different from what Linus Torvald mailing list abuse winds up being. The approach is "we have a culture of anything goes, not because anyone likes abuse, but it's best way to get things done, and because most competent people do things that way, starting with Linus himself, who's clearly ultra-competent".

Essentially, while there might be some similarities to each, the abuse in open source culture is far more similar to cult abuse than BDSM activity. In cult-style abuse a person entering a project would confronted by escalating abuse and they either flee or accept and begin to normalize it whereas in BDSM, a person is given a description of what they're getting into from the start (though shading towards other "styles" is a hazard here too, of course).

Thing is there are a spectrum of approaches on the Internet but with the Internet no longer young, it's understandable people are concerned about where various styles end up. I have a friend who frequents 4Chan and says they get a lot out of the anything goes styles - "you just have to be willing to accept being called a fag and not taking any of it seriously". The problem is it's known that a substantiale-enough-to-dangerous group of people take the abuse as exactly that point and rather than seeing at restricting it naming calling in forums, live stream mass murder (say, they guy in Australia). This takes people a little aback.

BDSM irl has a lot of controls to prevent people from taking it "seriously", the point isn't to have some who want to torture in a no-limits fashion. If you could have some equivalent way to filter out people who can't separate play from reality, that would be great but I haven't the more abusive nooks of the Internet being very good at that.