Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 1001 posts

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#281

Post by bitwize »

djsumdog wrote: post #236
sytse wrote: post #143

Someone at GitLab just made a suggestion to change the wording of the policy that I merged https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/merge_requests/...

> we encourage diversity of ideas. We respect the uniqueness and autonomy of others, even if we do not always agree with them. I like this. I like this a lot. I've never been a fan of the way the Contributors Code of Conduct does explicitly allow for people to have opinions of their own outside the projects so long as they don't try to represent those opinions as being a representative of the project. If it had, and…

If Coraline Ada Ehmke were here, she'd say something like: "That language is there for a reason. Transforming open source into a more welcoming place for marginalized communities is the main goal of all my work, from the Contributor Covenant to Ethical Source. But thank you for making your opinion known. I can now confidently recommend to conference organizers that you be banned in advance from any conference I plan on attending."

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#282

Post by [deleted] »

repolfx wrote: post #193
shadowgovt wrote: post #151

So when do you imagine they'll be implementing Navajo language support in their UI? Or is someone going to have to make the judgement call that Navajo users don't constitute a big enough political block to influence their l10n priorities? Someone has to make those calls

Navajo speakers aren't a political bloc, they're a linguistic bloc, and support for languages is driven by revenue potential in any software company I've ever seen.

[deleted]

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#283

Post by chapium »

repolfx wrote: post #193
shadowgovt wrote: post #151

So when do you imagine they'll be implementing Navajo language support in their UI? Or is someone going to have to make the judgement call that Navajo users don't constitute a big enough political block to influence their l10n priorities? Someone has to make those calls

Navajo speakers aren't a political bloc, they're a linguistic bloc, and support for languages is driven by revenue potential in any software company I've ever seen.

Language is partly power and identity. Definitely somewhat political.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#284

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

repolfx wrote: post #181
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's fair to call women in tech initiatives nonpolitical. There's no significant political opposition to them; things like the INSPIRE Women Act (the women in tech initiative for NASA) regularly get passed with no real debate.

Political opposition? Well, no, not visibly, but that's because "people should only get jobs if they're qualified" is already the default mainstream position. Women In Tech style initiatives claim to be about encouragement but invariably devolve into discrimination against men (in my experience at least) and that's illegal. One political faction turning a blind eye to violations of the law doesn't change the fact tha…

This isn't about one political faction, though. Both major political parties support women in tech programs; again, bills to set up women in tech programs for government organizations generally are unopposed.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#285

Post by justinmchase »

imgabe wrote: post #240

Did I miss something? Is there a reason why you have to qualify that you're not advocating for Joe Rogan? Did he get "cancelled"?

People try, they label him various things and will call you "alt right" if you don't qualify your reference to him. Its a pretty desperate label but they try.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#286

Post by jtms »

anm89 wrote: post #129

I personally think this is awesome. I don't wan't some git hosting startup to be the arbiter of morality for society. The engineers, designers, and PMs shouldn't have an outsized voice in society because they have a specialized useful skillset and ended up on a successful product. If these users are breaking laws, then put them out of business via the courts and sieze the assets (the repos in this case) via legal mea…

I would advocate for Joe Rogan, he is a voice of openness and willingness to talk about things rather than just shutting down conversations because you might not agree. He is also a great listener. The world needs more people like Rogan.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#287

Post by jimbobimbo »

hannasanarion wrote: post #134
vowelless wrote: post #18

I am glad Dang changed the title as the original one was unnecessarily inflammatory. I don’t understand why it’s encouraged (in some companies) to discuss politics at work in a way that leads to internal issues. Purely from a commercial stance, team cohesion has a positive impact on people and product. Why do anything to disturb that? > Such a declaration could run afoul of legal boundaries in some circumstances. Whi…

>America has sanctions. If the public wants corporations to not interact with certain countries, they can ask their legislators to fascilitate passing of sanctions (like we have today against Syria, making it illegal to provide services to them). This is a very confusing position to me. It is a bad thing to pick and choose your customers based on moral agreement, unless that morality is defined by the government in w…

Morality is not defined by the government - legality is. There're a lot of things that a lot of different people deem immoral - based on their religion, upbringing, media consumption and whatnot - which are not illegal. There's nothing wrong with the company conducting business compliant with the law, even if it may be viewed immoral from someone's point of view. It's a free country after all.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#288

Post by imgabe »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #278
imgabe wrote: post #240

Did I miss something? Is there a reason why you have to qualify that you're not advocating for Joe Rogan? Did he get "cancelled"?

Is there a reason someone shouldn't make such a clarification if they choose? "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" gets brought up an awful lot in free speech discussions on HN, and that's fine, but we need to emember that it definitionally includes defending the right to say, implicitly or explicitly, "That guy over there is saying really stupid/dangerous things and this is why h…

Is there a reason someone shouldn't ask about the reasoning behind such a clarification? I never disputed their right to make it, just didn't understand why.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#290

Post by justinmchase »

imgabe wrote: post #279
anm89 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify I don't dislike Rogan. I don't always like him either. I think he occasionally makes great points and sometimes says profoundly dumb stuff. The point is he's divisive and I don't wan't this to become a Joe Rogan debate.

Fair enough, I was just genuinely curious. I only started listening to him recently and didn't realize he was someone people would want to argue about.

He's willing to interview right wing people and treat them as if they're people.
Post reply on HN