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

Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

lunduke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 447 posts

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#311

Post by Karrot_Kream »

core-questions wrote: post #116
sascha_sl wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not exactly sure where you draw the difference. Minority opinions are sometimes helpful in creating products that work for everyone (my favorite example here being a hand dryer that did not recognize black skin). It can be useful to amplify such voices. If you want to call that "SJWism", fine. But this is literally just a call for civility, recognizing that many people may not want to subject themselves to this k…

> But this is literally just a call for civility, recognizing that many people may not want to subject themselves to this kind of toxic atmosphere The problem here is that "toxic" is something that gets to be defined by those who would use it as a hammer against everyone else. What one person considers to simply be a spirited conversation may seem as a deafeningly aggressive argument to someone else; but such is life…

> The free market dictates that products will survive on their merits

Huh? That's certainly not what the free market dictates at all. There's no sense of "merit" imbued anywhere inside anything in the free market. There are assumptions behind the shapes of the supply and demand functions (namely convexity) and a belief in price signaling information. That's all.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#312

Post by pdonis »

ringzero wrote: post #279
pdonis wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then I see Eric write this You are taking what he wrote out of context and interpreting it to mean something very different than what he intended. Eric is not arguing that insults are preferable to dispassionate feedback. (As I noted in another comment upthread, I have worked with him on a small part of one of his coding projects, and in that context he is all dispassionate feedback and no insults whatever. So in a…

I'm gonna quote this part: > and he sees the same game being played that has been played by the Left for centuries to gain control of institutions and then completely subvert them from their original purpose """Out of context""" that looks REAL similar to a certain other group that seems to be making a name for themselves in this thread. Glad to know he's a conspiracy theorist and so are his current followers.

> that looks REAL similar to a certain other group that seems to be making a name for themselves in this thread

Which other group are you referring to? If you're going to make charges of conspiracy theory, then you shouldn't use innuendo. Just come right out and say what you mean.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#313

Post by pdonis »

alasdair_ wrote: post #289
pdonis wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, esr is a real jerk. Real jerks in f/oss are also a real problem. f/oss groups should ABSOLUTELY eject bullies: not for wrongthink, but for bullying. We must be kind. I disagree with this argument as it is stated, because it is much too broad. If you had limited it to saying that you will eject bullies from f/oss groups that you have control over, and will refuse to participate in f/oss groups tha…

>But you don't get to tell every single person who does f/oss what kinds of people they should be willing to work with. There is a difference between "should" (which is clearly an opinion) and "must" (which implies some level of force to back it up).

> There is a difference between "should" (which is clearly an opinion) and "must" (which implies some level of force to back it up).

"Should" can turn into "must" very quickly when the "force to back it up" is obtained. So the time to object is at the "should" stage. If you wait until the "must" stage, it's too late. (Note that "cancel culture", when it reaches the "must" stage, which is exactly what it's trying to do with FOSS projects, does not tolerate dissenting opinions.)

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#315

Post by darawk »

cmcaine wrote: post #62
aeturnum wrote: post #10

From the previous discussion, plorkyeran[1] found the email that they suspect got ESR banned: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.... I'm not familiar with the culture or standards of the OSI but I don't think I'd wanna participate in a community where this kind of engagement is normal, so good for them I suppose? Edit: replaced plorkyeran's account link with their post. I also now notice othe…

Other quotes from the chain by ESR about Eric Schultz: > 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. and > Because that way he couldn't use our prestige to advance his goals. He couldn't use OSI to pretend to be pro-freedom while actually being against freedom. Both of these messages ar…

They do not assume bad faith. They define 'liberty and nondiscrimination' in a particular way that the other person, Eric Schulz, objectively opposes. Schulz would probably disagree about the definitions of those terms that ESR is using, but it is not an assumption of bad faith.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#316

Post by mikekchar »

asveikau wrote: post #264
nemo44x wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a power grab and has gone on forever in many forms. Redefine language and classify certain language as non-compliant under the guise of whatever it is that works to your advantage. Then use this to create systemic policy to dictate towards your goals and ultimately control whatever resource it is you were trying to colonize or acquire. Language is power and can greatly influence and define what masses of pe…

Why do you consider it a power grab sooner than, say, people acting in good faith who really believe in their stated values?

For me, personally, it would be easier to accept a good faith answer if they explained what "sharp tone" led to the expulsion. I mean, I can completely understand if threats were made, or if disparaging comments against protected categories (i.e. sexist, racist, etc comments). Or hate speech, or content that is clearly against policy (i.e. links to pornography). Personal attacks, doxing, stalking, extended periods of harassment etc, etc, etc. There are lots of things that people get banned for and it's pretty easy to say what they are.

Banning someone because they vehemently disagree with you? I mean, that's the only thing I can parse from their statement. It's basically saying, "I do not wish to discuss things with you, so you are banned".

The funny thing is, I don't think that's inherently wrong. In any group, I think you should be able to choose your friends. If you don't want to hang out with someone, then that sucks for that person, but lots of things in life suck. However, banning the co-founder because you no longer wish to talk to them is pretty much the definition of a power grab ;-)

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#317

Post by earenndil »

DuskStar wrote: post #173
ForHackernews wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a weird rejoinder to make in a thread about ESR, who was one of the loudest voices arguing for corporate-friendly language ("open-source" not "free software") and licenses (permissive, not copyleft).

And yet, if that's what it took to drive corporate adoption of open source software, it was almost certainly worth it... Can you imagine Linux in a world where companies like Google don't contribute kernel patches? Because I think that would look like a world where all the best OSes were proprietary.

BSD was already open-source and superior to linux as the time it came out; it was only hampered by licensing concerns.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#318

Post by bismic »

pdonis wrote: post #217
ringzero wrote: post #201

You know, this really sucks for me personally. Not the ban, but the sorts of things Eric appears to stand for. I read The Cathedral and the Bazaar when I was 13, and it was probably my gateway into advocating for open source. Somewhere around that age, I ended up speaking on a panel, among other OSS advocates, that successfully sold one of the local school divisions on OSS (we also helped them integrate it, on-site :…

> Then I see Eric write this You are taking what he wrote out of context and interpreting it to mean something very different than what he intended. Eric is not arguing that insults are preferable to dispassionate feedback. (As I noted in another comment upthread, I have worked with him on a small part of one of his coding projects, and in that context he is all dispassionate feedback and no insults whatever. So in a…

> he sees the same game being played that has been played by the Left for centuries to gain control of institutions and then completely subvert them from their original purpose. If you don't understand that historical context, of course you're not going to understand why he is being so forceful about this.

To be clear, the historical context for this point is that this is a Nazi conspiracy theory ("cultural Marxism") that posits left-wing Jews sought (and continue to seek) to subvert academic institutions.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#319

Post by zozbot234 »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #306
asveikau wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet I feel like "power grab" is a loaded description that implies such a "grab" is unjustified and that the grabber is primarily interested in power for power's sake, not for otherwise justifiable, altruistic, or benevolent reasons.

Because it is a bad thing regardless who does it. If the supposed good guys were actually as good as they thought they were, they would simply aim to do whatever jobs need doing with as much integrity as they posess. They wouldn't be grabbing power, for any reason. There is no "enlightened" reason to grab power. If you don't like how someone else runs something, it's not your only option to try to take it over from t…

The whole idea of merit and meritocracy is that power and influence (and perhaps control, if applicable) should be allocated fairly and transparently, via processes that reliably correlate with good decision-making. Notably, a stridently authoritarian leadership style calling for bans on "evil" and "unethical" software use (as featured in the so-called "Ethical Software Definition") does not correlate with such; but to be fair, neither does the use of obnoxious name-calling like "toxic loony". To me, the latter just feels sad! So, I'd say I can see "both sides" in this, so to speak.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#320

Post by pdonis »

bismic wrote: post #318
pdonis wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then I see Eric write this You are taking what he wrote out of context and interpreting it to mean something very different than what he intended. Eric is not arguing that insults are preferable to dispassionate feedback. (As I noted in another comment upthread, I have worked with him on a small part of one of his coding projects, and in that context he is all dispassionate feedback and no insults whatever. So in a…

> he sees the same game being played that has been played by the Left for centuries to gain control of institutions and then completely subvert them from their original purpose. If you don't understand that historical context, of course you're not going to understand why he is being so forceful about this. To be clear, the historical context for this point is that this is a Nazi conspiracy theory ("cultural Marxism")…

> the historical context for this point is that this is a Nazi conspiracy theory

Um, what? I don't know where you're getting this from. The historical pattern I refer to, as I said, goes back centuries. And the subversion of academic institutions, for example in the US during the 1960s, had nothing to do with Jews.

Post reply on HN