61–70 of 341 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Eich didn't engage in advocacy as an executive, he did so as a private citizen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
As usual, depends on the contents of the code. That kind of legalese is just tooling to organize discourse. 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Does Drupal get hurt even further? Or does Drupal look like a project with a strong community that stands up to perceived errors of its leadership by demanding better justifications? FWIW, I think many other communities would have imploded by now, and at least the posts that have been linked here have been surprisingly civil. I might agree with you if it were a call to resign or similar, but they aim at getting (to t…
The problem here is that the producers of drupal are a much smaller set of people than the consumers of something like drupal. It's the consumers that will have to decide whether they want to base their next project on Drupal or not and all this infighting is giving of an aura of extreme instability. So as a result the drupal project as a whole will suffer because some fraction of that audience will decide to move on from Drupal.
There is an important point that is being missed in this conversation. There are facts that are undisputed by both sides of the argument: - Should a person have a right to privacy? Yes - Should a person be discriminated based on their beliefs? No - Should a person in leadership be forced to expose their private life? No There are two questions, however, that is causing everyone to trip over themselves and table-flip:…
> For example, if a person has religious views that women should not work, should they be part of the open source community? Of course. Should they be a leader of the community and have prominent speaking roles? Doesn't this just kick the can down the street a few feet? It seems, and I may have interpreted it incorrectly, that the leader or leaders of a community must not personally hold any controversial views at al…
Who gets to define whats controversial?
Everyone has an agenda. Seems to be that whoever is best at getting people outraged gets to control them.
> We know that you have no desire for more press coverage, Dries. The last thing you want is to prolong the media parade that has drawn so much attention to the problems with Drupal governance. That must be why they chose to do this in public rather than in a private letter. As much as I agree with the contents of the letter I reject the way in which it was delivered, it is essentially blackmail. If you don't do 'x'…
It's marketing. Nothing new with that.
This is very true. A large portion of these so-labeled SJWs preach inclusion* and diversity^. It's all about total and blind conformity to and their constructed alternative reality, based on unquestionable and irrefutable faux-offense. * inclusion limited to like-minded individuals who share the same ideas about gender, religion, feminism, capitalism, politics, race, nationality, hair color and cut, health and body i…
share the same ideas about gender, religion, feminism, capitalism, politics, race, nationality, hair color and cut, health and body image, aesthetics, and any other category that they deem fit
Expanding on one of the comments that might clear up what we're actually talking about (which wasn't made especially clear otherwise): >> "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 wome…
> ...as long as that belief is not in some way construed as a community value... I honestly don't care about that even, as long as people can discuss their ideas and leave the group if they're done tolerating each other. > It's one of the simple facts of life that you pretty have to work with people who believe all kinds of things... In popular usage, "tolerance" is slowly becoming synonymous with "acceptance" or "ce…
Personally I'd agree with that, but analogous to being the employee of a company, it becomes a problem if off-topic distractions seep into the daily business, especially if these conflicts have a potential to escalate into the public view, and especially if the convictions in question are unethical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've started to mentally replace the words "inclusion and diversity" with "conformity" on certain places on the net.
The key is "tolerance" and "inclusion". Those are, of course, superior to intolerance and exclusion. To have tolerance, you cannot tolerate intolerance. It is maybe illogical, but necessary.
Your comment shows the exact sort of thinking the people you're responding to are going off on.
The issue is people are trying to implement nonviolent communication principles in communities without learning how to process the world through the lens of nonviolent communication. And others are using the natural misunderstandings as evidence against nonviolent communication, as though the concept is the problem instead of people interpreting the concept in violent ways society teaches us to.
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?
>> "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."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without getting into controversial labels, it's not clear to me who did what to whom and what the people are petitioning for. 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.
Larry is Gorean Goreans are people that agree with philosophy of professor John Lange, that writes his philosophy in porn books with pen name John Norman What got Larry kicked out is that similarly to Abrahamic religions, Goreans believe there is an inherent hierarchy between men and women. Or at least it is what Dries (Drupal leader) wrote as explanation for the incident. So Larry is being punished literally for "wr…