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

701–710 of 1001 posts

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#701

Post by alisonatwork »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #655
alisonatwork wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a fair comparison. The OC was not talking about proselytizing, they were talking about how to create an inclusive environment at work. We cannot create an inclusive environment at work if we are not allowed to openly talk about groups who currently do not feel included and why that is.

Being a preacher does not feel like proselytizing. It feels like focusing people's attention on important issues, and working towards an inclusive* environment conductive to open talk about the most important of issues. * - Inclusive environment obviously cannot include the people who hardened their hearts to God, and apostates who turned their back on the Word of God and only speak to poison the minds of good people…

It is not helpful to change the definition of the word "inclusive". In the context of the workplace - not the church - inclusivity means ensuring all employees have the opportunity to execute to the best of their capacity. In workplaces that are less inclusive, some groups may not be able to do so for various reasons.

The OC named LGBTQ+ people as an example, which is fair, as at many workplaces discussion of family or inviting family to social functions is considered a norm and perhaps even a core value. If gay employees face harassment or (in some jurisdictions) termination for discussing their family, that is a failure of inclusion policies.

Another example of inclusion is related to accessibility. Is your workplace welcoming of colleagues with disabilities? Can someone with limited mobility attend all corporate events? Are people with speech impediments given time to speak on meetings? This is outside of my personal wheelhouse but I hope the point is clear.

There are many ways in which a workplace can improve its inclusivity, and they are all rooted in improving the performance of the employees.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#702

Post by bloody-crow »

unscrupulous_sw wrote: post #560
legostormtroopr wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can’t improve without discussion, and it’s unfortunate that these type of issues are so divisive. Except Cancel Culture is making it that these can't be discussed without complete agreement. Take for example, "Women in Tech", personally I don't see underrepresentation of women in tech as a problem that can be or should be 'solved'. For the better part of 15 years, there has been a massive movement to encourage w…

Just to chime in, I also unknowingly got myself labeled sexist when the topic came up during a random lunch with "friends" (company provided lunch so it had random people from HR and recruiting). Somehow or another the topic of whether going for 50/50 will "lower the bar". So I started thinking about the problem mathematically like any engineer would, with statistical distributions and estimates of the existing pipel…

I've once engaged in a similar discussion with a female colleague and it escalated into a shit-show with manager & HR being involved and colleague being in tears claiming I'm "sexist" despite my aggressive attempts to de-escalate and walk away from continuing the conversation. The HR did an investigation and came to a conclusion that I didn't do anything wrong, but strongly suggested not talking about anything like that in future. The colleague made a claim that she wouldn't be able to work with me in the same company and quit.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#703

Post by testis321 »

neonate wrote: post #280
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…

Wow, that is such a clear analysis that someone should transcribe it. Here's the main part of what Naval says: "If Google, Facebook, and Twitter had been smart about this, they would not have picked sides. They would have said "We're publishers. Whatever goes through our pipes goes through our pipes. If it's illegal, we'll take it down. Give us a court order. Otherwise we don't touch it." It's like the phone company.…

There should be only once choice, either you're a platform or a publisher.

A platform should be open, and only illegal stuff should be removed. No preferences, no nothing.

A publisher can be closed, can be whatever they want it, can filter whatever, promote whatever and censor whatever.

...but!

If you're a publisher, you've decided what to publish, and you should be responsible for all content published on your webpage. Fake news? Illegal porn? Nuclear bomb plans? Your problem, your responsiblity, you face the consequences.

If you want to be an open platform and blame users for content posted there (and have them face the consequences), then you should have no right to promote, censor or block/hide content (except illegal).

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#704

Post by LegitShady »

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 had no idea who Naval Ravikant was until I randomly read one of his tweets and thought "this dude has good thinking" and went to look up him. Interesting character.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#705

Post by Aeolun »

sytse wrote: post #380
archi42 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This still leaves the "talking about politics is banned"-point-of-criticism. Since you're the CEO: How did problems discussing politics manifest at GitLab that you feel this step is necessary? Or is this a "preemptive strike"?

For example I was deeply moved by Executive Order 13769 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769 and posted so in our Slack. The first comment was 'F* Trump', written out. At the same time many people in our company probably voted for Trump.

I don’t think there is anything preventing them from defending him or EO13769 is there?

I don’t quite see how they could effectively do that, but the possibility is there.

(Yes, I realize it would be social suicide, but while I understand that this is theoretically a bad thing, I just cannot quite apply it to Trump supporters)

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#706

Post by BurningFrog »

neonate wrote: post #280
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…

Wow, that is such a clear analysis that someone should transcribe it. Here's the main part of what Naval says: "If Google, Facebook, and Twitter had been smart about this, they would not have picked sides. They would have said "We're publishers. Whatever goes through our pipes goes through our pipes. If it's illegal, we'll take it down. Give us a court order. Otherwise we don't touch it." It's like the phone company.…

> ...so they will be controlled by the government."

The cynical Regulatory Capture inspired take is that they want to be regulated now. Because regulation always favors the established players and makes it very hard for newcomers to overthrow them.

Google, FB etc are now big and old enough to need that protection, and settle in to comfortable corporate middle age.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#707

Post by MiroF »

SkyBelow wrote: post #496
XPKBandMaidCzun wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work. Having a discussion is hard. While you come to this well-intended, participants bring their own life experiences and hardships. They may not agree on the starting point of the conversation: How is "marginalized' and "privileged" is defined? Some may not take that perspective on the above issues, and people with thes…

>Casting a group as marginalized draws broad strokes about others, because who isn't marginalized? How could someone know how someone else feels or what they have faced in life? If you don't like having your hardship belittled, why potentially do the same thing to others? We all have feelings and their own unique stories. Let me give you a real world example. In the US, the average white person goes to a better funde…

I also went to a school that was majority black and am white.

> When applying to college, many colleges use race to assume a level of hardship and then adjust admission standards based on hardship. Someone who goes to a very underfunded school won't score as high on the SAT as they would have if they had gone to a better school. Yet because of my race, the assumption is made that such reasoning does not apply to me.

I do not think this is true for the highest tier of colleges, who will also consider what highschool you come from.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#708

Post by chii »

core-questions wrote: post #664
slg wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>personally I don't see underrepresentation of women in tech as a problem that can be or should be 'solved' I say the below not as an attempt to criticize you for this viewpoint, but as a way to try to explain why this viewpoint is often interpreted as sexist. The question is why do you believe this? The possible explanations for why women are underrepresented in tech basically comes down to either nature or nurture.…

There's something fundamentally different about women that enables them to give birth to children. Humanity has been discussing the differences in behaviour between these two groups for literally millennia. Are we really going to just decide by fiat that there is zero possibility of a difference in inclination or ability that lends itself to women simply not wanting to be in this field as much as men? You essentially…

what is more interesting to discuss is why the same fervour is not given to other jobs where an imbalance in gender exists (for example, registered nurses).

There's also more male electricians than female ones.

I feel that if females who would have made good engineers are turned away by discrimination or harassment, there's a good opportunity for a company to find hidden gems of an employee for lower cost than the equivalent male by making sure she is treated well. Then natural competition should balance out the cost difference over time.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#709

Post by shard972 »

seamyb88 wrote: post #413
TulliusCicero wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phone company analogy doesn't really work, because phone calls are by default private, between exactly two parties, usually just two people. If you look at the tech company equivalent of that, like FB messenger, or Hangouts, or other messaging systems, they behave more similarly to the phone company. It'd be difficult to get in trouble for something you said in a private message. If you want the analogy to make s…

The phone analogy is terrible because the vitriol doesn't prevail. You aren't bombarded with 100 people's bigotry every time you pick up the phone.

lol, turn off ur phone

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#710

Post by alchemism »

manfredo wrote: post #571
unscrupulous_sw wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to chime in, I also unknowingly got myself labeled sexist when the topic came up during a random lunch with "friends" (company provided lunch so it had random people from HR and recruiting). Somehow or another the topic of whether going for 50/50 will "lower the bar". So I started thinking about the problem mathematically like any engineer would, with statistical distributions and estimates of the existing pipel…

This parallels my experience. I have repeatedly feigned support for denying employment to white and Asian men to increase our proportional representation of demographics categorized as diverse. The company has set an outcome based goal to have 33% women in tech roles. When the industry is only 20-25% female, such a target is effectively impossible without discrimination. But no one who wants to succeed dares bring th…

One org’s discrimination is another org’s curation, semantically-speaking. The subjectivity usually depends on which side of the dividing line the perceiver finds themselves.
Post reply on HN