~sircmpwn/free-writers-club

8 6

RFC: Antipolitical Software Manifest

Details
Message ID
<81f7d2995e1dd8c62a46d34246aee0d6e0fbd2e0.camel@posteo.de>
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
Hi!

This is a request for comments on a manifest I wrote, which intends
primarily to keep ideology* and politics out of software projects.
I'm not sure if the emotionally charged time is the right time for this
move – but maybe it is exactly the right time.

tl;dr:
https://git.sr.ht/~imperator/apolitical/tree/master/APOLITICAL

Things have happened which are rather terrifying to me.
Most notably:

   1. "The Rust Core Team believes that tech is and always will be
      political" [1].
   2. Raphael left LLVM [2]
   3. Or the attempt to make poor rubocop change its name. A software
      which is maintained by a guy from Bulgaria. [3]
   4. Or the fall of RMS (I know he's insane, but he's also insanely
      competent) and temporarily Linus himself.
   5. At Google, James Damore was fired for writing a memo [4] he wrote as
      (requested) feedback on one of their diversity seminars.

What we're experiencing in my estimation is rather totalitarian: The
move of politics and political views into absolutely non-political
projects.
Personally, I believe this is extremely dangerous, regardless of from
where the ideology is coming from. Especially, because it will not stop
demanding more and more.

And I don't care which idea or ideology precisely we are talking about:
It does not belong into technology. Tech should be based on the idea of
"improving" the world by providing its inhabitants with high quality
software.

And by the way, this is the reason why tech projects have such a hard
time defending themselves. Tech is insanely complex, and if you want to
thrive in this field you'll have to spend a lot of your attention and
time on a specific topic to become an expert in it. Techies often don't
read much news, don't necessarily spend the time necessary to
understand large issues outside of tech. They don't understand what is
happening and why, and how to defend themselves against arguments and
pushes they feel aren't good. Arguing on politics takes time and
effort.
Techies just want to be left alone and code.
But /they/ won't leave them alone. They are better in politics and
arguments; so if nothing happens, they will eventually win.
After all, what's the problem of changing your project's logo to a
green tree for a month? Don't you care about global warming? Don't you
think we all have to speak up now?
And so you agree, wanting to be in peace at home. It's just a logo
after all, who cares.
And you will be in peace. For a while.
Then one day they will come and demand that you fire one of your top
contributors, because he did or wrote (or is) something in his free
time which is not judged by them to be appropriate. So then you pursue
him to apologize. But he's stubborn: "I have done nothing wrong. I
won't apologize". Crap. Why doesn't he just apologize, so you can be
left alone and code? It's just an apology, after all, right? It's just
words.
And a few years down this road they will ask why it is that there are
so few people with physical attribute X or from identity group Y in
your project. Why don't you bother to increase their represantation? Is
there maybe something hostile about your community? You should put a
statement on your website, stating that you are standing on the right
side. But then nothing changes. Bad. So maybe there will be a bad PR
one day from a person with characteristics X and Y. And you should pull
it, should you not? Then they will leave you at peace and you can "just
code", won't they?

And it will go on and on and on until one day you might realize that
you should have spoken up earlier and defended your project.

Because it's not "just a logo", it's not just "a banner", it's not
"just words" – it's about wether a non-political project will become
political or not.
And you won't be the one who decides which politics it will be, when
you just bow to an external (or even internal) mob who demands changes.
In five years it might be another mob, demanding different or even more
radical changes.

That's what this document is intended for.
I designed it as a set of, hopefully decent rules, but mostly as a
public statement you can include like a software license.
It states: We don't want politics here. Regardless of which group you
belong to, you can participate, but you have to leave your politics
outside of this project. When your ideas and PRs are good, we will pull
them.
And if one day some ideologue comes, who has never participated or
contributed in your project and demands you change this or that, you
can refer to your manifest and say: "We don't do that here. If you think your suggestion is of such value, you can fork us, set up a new
website, register a domain and then include a statement about president
X of country Y on your forked version of our website.
And we will see whether the users like your change so much they will
prefer your version."

End of monologue.

I'm happy about suggestions on improving the phrasing or the content
and am curious what you think about the whole idea.

Philipp

[1] https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/06/04/Rust-1.44.0.html
[2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/122922.html
[3] https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rubocop/issues/8091
[4] https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/read-the-google-diversity-memo-that-that-everyone-is-freaking-out-about/

* Ideolog*ues* can participate, but they have to discuss their ideology
elsewhere, outside the project.
Details
Message ID
<C3XV738U6RVT.3LWL042YH3N8Q@homura>
In-Reply-To
<81f7d2995e1dd8c62a46d34246aee0d6e0fbd2e0.camel@posteo.de> (view parent)
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
NACK.

An apolitical message is, itself, a political message. It's an
endorsement of the status quo, and the status quo is not great,
including for some of the people you set out to defend.

I wrote up my thoughts on the problem here:

https://drewdevault.com/2020/01/17/Effective-project-governance.html
Details
Message ID
<D88E9AA0-C712-4249-B854-EC0EF50FB632@eli.li>
In-Reply-To
<81f7d2995e1dd8c62a46d34246aee0d6e0fbd2e0.camel@posteo.de> (view parent)
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
Gonna preface this with the note that I *deeply* disagree with the core thesis here. I've done my best to to engage with the content in isolation, though, and apologies if I've slipped anywhere. 

To start, I'd ask why if the goal hear is to remove "politics" from software, use the levers and mechanisms of politics itself (eg a license) to enact the removal of politics? 

This may be more effective as a code of conduct than as a license. 

In my experience a code of conduct typically has to be mutually agreed to by all entering folks, where as a license is imposed from on-high.

> On Jul 4, 2020, at 8:26 AM, Philipp Stanner <stanner@posteo.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> This is a request for comments on a manifest I wrote, which intends
> primarily to keep ideology* and politics out of software projects.
> I'm not sure if the emotionally charged time is the right time for this
> move – but maybe it is exactly the right time.
> 
> tl;dr:
> https://git.sr.ht/~imperator/apolitical/tree/master/APOLITICAL
> 
> Things have happened which are rather terrifying to me.
> Most notably:
> 
>   1. "The Rust Core Team believes that tech is and always will be
>      political" [1].
>   2. Raphael left LLVM [2]
>   3. Or the attempt to make poor rubocop change its name. A software
>      which is maintained by a guy from Bulgaria. [3]
>   4. Or the fall of RMS (I know he's insane, but he's also insanely
>      competent) and temporarily Linus himself.
>   5. At Google, James Damore was fired for writing a memo [4] he wrote as
>      (requested) feedback on one of their diversity seminars.
> 
> What we're experiencing in my estimation is rather totalitarian: The
> move of politics and political views into absolutely non-political
> projects.
> Personally, I believe this is extremely dangerous, regardless of from
> where the ideology is coming from. Especially, because it will not stop
> demanding more and more.
> 
> And I don't care which idea or ideology precisely we are talking about:
> It does not belong into technology. Tech should be based on the idea of
> "improving" the world by providing its inhabitants with high quality
> software.
> 
> And by the way, this is the reason why tech projects have such a hard
> time defending themselves. Tech is insanely complex, and if you want to
> thrive in this field you'll have to spend a lot of your attention and
> time on a specific topic to become an expert in it. Techies often don't
> read much news, don't necessarily spend the time necessary to
> understand large issues outside of tech. They don't understand what is
> happening and why, and how to defend themselves against arguments and
> pushes they feel aren't good. Arguing on politics takes time and
> effort.
> Techies just want to be left alone and code.
> But /they/ won't leave them alone. They are better in politics and
> arguments; so if nothing happens, they will eventually win.
> After all, what's the problem of changing your project's logo to a
> green tree for a month? Don't you care about global warming? Don't you
> think we all have to speak up now?
> And so you agree, wanting to be in peace at home. It's just a logo
> after all, who cares.
> And you will be in peace. For a while.
> Then one day they will come and demand that you fire one of your top
> contributors, because he did or wrote (or is) something in his free
> time which is not judged by them to be appropriate. So then you pursue
> him to apologize. But he's stubborn: "I have done nothing wrong. I
> won't apologize". Crap. Why doesn't he just apologize, so you can be
> left alone and code? It's just an apology, after all, right? It's just
> words.
> And a few years down this road they will ask why it is that there are
> so few people with physical attribute X or from identity group Y in
> your project. Why don't you bother to increase their represantation? Is
> there maybe something hostile about your community? You should put a
> statement on your website, stating that you are standing on the right
> side. But then nothing changes. Bad. So maybe there will be a bad PR
> one day from a person with characteristics X and Y. And you should pull
> it, should you not? Then they will leave you at peace and you can "just
> code", won't they?
> 
> And it will go on and on and on until one day you might realize that
> you should have spoken up earlier and defended your project.
> 
> Because it's not "just a logo", it's not just "a banner", it's not
> "just words" – it's about wether a non-political project will become
> political or not.
> And you won't be the one who decides which politics it will be, when
> you just bow to an external (or even internal) mob who demands changes.
> In five years it might be another mob, demanding different or even more
> radical changes.
> 
> That's what this document is intended for.
> I designed it as a set of, hopefully decent rules, but mostly as a
> public statement you can include like a software license.
> It states: We don't want politics here. Regardless of which group you
> belong to, you can participate, but you have to leave your politics
> outside of this project. When your ideas and PRs are good, we will pull
> them.
> And if one day some ideologue comes, who has never participated or
> contributed in your project and demands you change this or that, you
> can refer to your manifest and say: "We don't do that here. If you think your suggestion is of such value, you can fork us, set up a new
> website, register a domain and then include a statement about president
> X of country Y on your forked version of our website.
> And we will see whether the users like your change so much they will
> prefer your version."
> 
> End of monologue.
> 
> I'm happy about suggestions on improving the phrasing or the content
> and am curious what you think about the whole idea.
> 
> Philipp
> 
> [1] https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/06/04/Rust-1.44.0.html
> [2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/122922.html
> [3] https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rubocop/issues/8091
> [4] https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/read-the-google-diversity-memo-that-that-everyone-is-freaking-out-about/
> 
> * Ideolog*ues* can participate, but they have to discuss their ideology
> elsewhere, outside the project.
Details
Message ID
<C3XV8L8U7BRU.J1KQQVTFK230@homura>
In-Reply-To
<D88E9AA0-C712-4249-B854-EC0EF50FB632@eli.li> (view parent)
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
Definitely DO NOT use your license to enforce your political aims.
Francesco Mecca
Details
Message ID
<f44b6d0e-e2be-4b31-9630-b03877cedee7@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<81f7d2995e1dd8c62a46d34246aee0d6e0fbd2e0.camel@posteo.de> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hi Philip,
while I do agree with your views on the matter I think that your manifest could be detrimental on the the health of a project.

I have been approached both publicly (on the web) and privately (IRL) for political issues regarding my public software projects. I consider myself a minority and I have worked with many. Moreover I don't think my software harms any minority (or any person in general) but I am open to discuss such issues.
Requests such as the one for rubocop or the italian Opal [1] are power plays that aim to disrupt the equilibrium of a small community. They are rather similar in form to brigading attacks that I remember from my first social media days and I treat them in the same way: I ignore them.

Ignoring means that whenever a person that never collaborated on my project, with an almost empty history of commits on github opens an issue on one of my repo to request $inclusive_change I delete the issue and block the user. Whenever this happens IRL, I avoid to respond to the person.
Of course this doesn't scale to very successful projects (e.g. redis[2])  and to close people, which I treat differently and try to respond more politely.

This has always worked for me (at least for now) and it is just a different take on the widely known: don't feed the trolls.
I believe that your manifesto would backfire and attract unwanted attention.

Best,
Francesco

[1] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
[2] http://antirez.com/news/122

On Sat, Jul 4, 2020, at 2:25 PM, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> This is a request for comments on a manifest I wrote, which intends
> primarily to keep ideology* and politics out of software projects.
> I'm not sure if the emotionally charged time is the right time for this
> move – but maybe it is exactly the right time.
> 
> tl;dr:
> https://git.sr.ht/~imperator/apolitical/tree/master/APOLITICAL
> 
> Things have happened which are rather terrifying to me.
> Most notably:
> 
>    1. "The Rust Core Team believes that tech is and always will be
>       political" [1].
>    2. Raphael left LLVM [2]
>    3. Or the attempt to make poor rubocop change its name. A software
>       which is maintained by a guy from Bulgaria. [3]
>    4. Or the fall of RMS (I know he's insane, but he's also insanely
>       competent) and temporarily Linus himself.
>    5. At Google, James Damore was fired for writing a memo [4] he wrote as
>       (requested) feedback on one of their diversity seminars.
> 
> What we're experiencing in my estimation is rather totalitarian: The
> move of politics and political views into absolutely non-political
> projects.
> Personally, I believe this is extremely dangerous, regardless of from
> where the ideology is coming from. Especially, because it will not stop
> demanding more and more.
> 
> And I don't care which idea or ideology precisely we are talking about:
> It does not belong into technology. Tech should be based on the idea of
> "improving" the world by providing its inhabitants with high quality
> software.
> 
> And by the way, this is the reason why tech projects have such a hard
> time defending themselves. Tech is insanely complex, and if you want to
> thrive in this field you'll have to spend a lot of your attention and
> time on a specific topic to become an expert in it. Techies often don't
> read much news, don't necessarily spend the time necessary to
> understand large issues outside of tech. They don't understand what is
> happening and why, and how to defend themselves against arguments and
> pushes they feel aren't good. Arguing on politics takes time and
> effort.
> Techies just want to be left alone and code.
> But /they/ won't leave them alone. They are better in politics and
> arguments; so if nothing happens, they will eventually win.
> After all, what's the problem of changing your project's logo to a
> green tree for a month? Don't you care about global warming? Don't you
> think we all have to speak up now?
> And so you agree, wanting to be in peace at home. It's just a logo
> after all, who cares.
> And you will be in peace. For a while.
> Then one day they will come and demand that you fire one of your top
> contributors, because he did or wrote (or is) something in his free
> time which is not judged by them to be appropriate. So then you pursue
> him to apologize. But he's stubborn: "I have done nothing wrong. I
> won't apologize". Crap. Why doesn't he just apologize, so you can be
> left alone and code? It's just an apology, after all, right? It's just
> words.
> And a few years down this road they will ask why it is that there are
> so few people with physical attribute X or from identity group Y in
> your project. Why don't you bother to increase their represantation? Is
> there maybe something hostile about your community? You should put a
> statement on your website, stating that you are standing on the right
> side. But then nothing changes. Bad. So maybe there will be a bad PR
> one day from a person with characteristics X and Y. And you should pull
> it, should you not? Then they will leave you at peace and you can "just
> code", won't they?
> 
> And it will go on and on and on until one day you might realize that
> you should have spoken up earlier and defended your project.
> 
> Because it's not "just a logo", it's not just "a banner", it's not
> "just words" – it's about wether a non-political project will become
> political or not.
> And you won't be the one who decides which politics it will be, when
> you just bow to an external (or even internal) mob who demands changes.
> In five years it might be another mob, demanding different or even more
> radical changes.
> 
> That's what this document is intended for.
> I designed it as a set of, hopefully decent rules, but mostly as a
> public statement you can include like a software license.
> It states: We don't want politics here. Regardless of which group you
> belong to, you can participate, but you have to leave your politics
> outside of this project. When your ideas and PRs are good, we will pull
> them.
> And if one day some ideologue comes, who has never participated or
> contributed in your project and demands you change this or that, you
> can refer to your manifest and say: "We don't do that here. If you 
> think your suggestion is of such value, you can fork us, set up a new
> website, register a domain and then include a statement about president
> X of country Y on your forked version of our website.
> And we will see whether the users like your change so much they will
> prefer your version."
> 
> End of monologue.
> 
> I'm happy about suggestions on improving the phrasing or the content
> and am curious what you think about the whole idea.
> 
> Philipp
> 
> [1] https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/06/04/Rust-1.44.0.html
> [2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/122922.html
> [3] https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rubocop/issues/8091
> [4] 
> https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/read-the-google-diversity-memo-that-that-everyone-is-freaking-out-about/
> 
> * Ideolog*ues* can participate, but they have to discuss their ideology
> elsewhere, outside the project.
>
Details
Message ID
<50c7f680-9fa0-4dc6-a001-3c41a096f284@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<81f7d2995e1dd8c62a46d34246aee0d6e0fbd2e0.camel@posteo.de> (view parent)
DKIM signature
fail
Download raw message
DKIM signature: fail
If you have more than 1 person working together on something, it's
political. Pretending to be a-political is itself a political statement.
You can't escape it by putting something in your license. License
proliferation and using it to enforce your political beliefs (which are
apparently that software should not be a force for change in the world,
which is itself a political belief) is probably much more dangerous than
the Rust team including a BLM banner on their site or whatever it is
that's made you write this.


—Sam

On Sat, Jul 4, 2020, at 08:25, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This is a request for comments on a manifest I wrote, which intends
> primarily to keep ideology* and politics out of software projects. I'm
> not sure if the emotionally charged time is the right time for this
> move – but maybe it is exactly the right time.
>
> tl;dr: https://git.sr.ht/~imperator/apolitical/tree/master/APOLITICAL
>
> Things have happened which are rather terrifying to me. Most notably:
>
>    1. "The Rust Core Team believes that tech is and always will be
>       political" [1].
>    2. Raphael left LLVM [2]
>    3. Or the attempt to make poor rubocop change its name. A software
>       which is maintained by a guy from Bulgaria. [3]
>    4. Or the fall of RMS (I know he's insane, but he's also insanely
>       competent) and temporarily Linus himself.
>    5. At Google, James Damore was fired for writing a memo [4] he
>       wrote as (requested) feedback on one of their diversity
>       seminars.
>
> What we're experiencing in my estimation is rather totalitarian: The
> move of politics and political views into absolutely non-political
> projects. Personally, I believe this is extremely dangerous,
> regardless of from where the ideology is coming from. Especially,
> because it will not stop demanding more and more.
>
> And I don't care which idea or ideology precisely we are talking
> about: It does not belong into technology. Tech should be based on the
> idea of "improving" the world by providing its inhabitants with high
> quality software.
>
> And by the way, this is the reason why tech projects have such a hard
> time defending themselves. Tech is insanely complex, and if you want
> to thrive in this field you'll have to spend a lot of your attention
> and time on a specific topic to become an expert in it. Techies often
> don't read much news, don't necessarily spend the time necessary to
> understand large issues outside of tech. They don't understand what is
> happening and why, and how to defend themselves against arguments and
> pushes they feel aren't good. Arguing on politics takes time and
> effort. Techies just want to be left alone and code. But /they/ won't
> leave them alone. They are better in politics and arguments; so if
> nothing happens, they will eventually win. After all, what's the
> problem of changing your project's logo to a green tree for a month?
> Don't you care about global warming? Don't you think we all have to
> speak up now? And so you agree, wanting to be in peace at home. It's
> just a logo after all, who cares. And you will be in peace. For a
> while. Then one day they will come and demand that you fire one of
> your top contributors, because he did or wrote (or is) something in
> his free time which is not judged by them to be appropriate. So then
> you pursue him to apologize. But he's stubborn: "I have done nothing
> wrong. I won't apologize". Crap. Why doesn't he just apologize, so you
> can be left alone and code? It's just an apology, after all, right?
> It's just words. And a few years down this road they will ask why it
> is that there are so few people with physical attribute X or from
> identity group Y in your project. Why don't you bother to increase
> their represantation? Is there maybe something hostile about your
> community? You should put a statement on your website, stating that
> you are standing on the right side. But then nothing changes. Bad. So
> maybe there will be a bad PR one day from a person with
> characteristics X and Y. And you should pull it, should you not? Then
> they will leave you at peace and you can "just code", won't they?
>
> And it will go on and on and on until one day you might realize that
> you should have spoken up earlier and defended your project.
>
> Because it's not "just a logo", it's not just "a banner", it's not
> "just words" – it's about wether a non-political project will become
> political or not. And you won't be the one who decides which politics
> it will be, when you just bow to an external (or even internal) mob
> who demands changes. In five years it might be another mob, demanding
> different or even more radical changes.
>
> That's what this document is intended for. I designed it as a set of,
> hopefully decent rules, but mostly as a public statement you can
> include like a software license. It states: We don't want politics
> here. Regardless of which group you belong to, you can participate,
> but you have to leave your politics outside of this project. When your
> ideas and PRs are good, we will pull them. And if one day some
> ideologue comes, who has never participated or contributed in your
> project and demands you change this or that, you can refer to your
> manifest and say: "We don't do that here. If you think your suggestion
> is of such value, you can fork us, set up a new website, register a
> domain and then include a statement about president X of country Y on
> your forked version of our website. And we will see whether the users
> like your change so much they will prefer your version."
>
> End of monologue.
>
> I'm happy about suggestions on improving the phrasing or the content
> and am curious what you think about the whole idea.
>
> Philipp
>
> [1] https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/06/04/Rust-1.44.0.html
> [2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/122922.html
> [3] https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rubocop/issues/8091
> [4] https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/read-the-google-diversity-memo-that-that-everyone-is-freaking-out-about/
>
> * Ideolog*ues* can participate, but they have to discuss their
>   ideology elsewhere, outside the project.
>

-- 
Sam Whited
Details
Message ID
<17b93f43d9d38414dce866a6cef0136473b0bf79.camel@posteo.de>
In-Reply-To
<50c7f680-9fa0-4dc6-a001-3c41a096f284@www.fastmail.com> (view parent)
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
Am Samstag, den 04.07.2020, 09:18 -0400 schrieb Sam Whited:
> If you have more than 1 person working together on something, it's
> political. Pretending to be a-political is itself a political
> statement.

So stating not to be a religious project is a religious statement?
What's the point?
Everything is related to everything. If this was our argument we
wouldn't have any rules anywhere to begin with.

> You can't escape it by putting something in your license. License
> proliferation and using it to enforce your political beliefs (which
> are
> apparently that software should not be a force for change in the
> world,

The point is precisely that it *is* a force for change in the world. 
That's quite literally written in the doc, by the way.
It's about what kind of change in which place we are talking about.

> which is itself a political belief) is probably much more dangerous
> than
> the Rust team including a BLM banner on their site or whatever it is
> that's made you write this.

They have not put a banner on their site, as far as I know.

> 
> —Sam
> 
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2020, at 08:25, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > This is a request for comments on a manifest I wrote, which intends
> > primarily to keep ideology* and politics out of software projects.
> > I'm
> > not sure if the emotionally charged time is the right time for this
> > move – but maybe it is exactly the right time.
> > 
> > tl;dr: 
> > https://git.sr.ht/~imperator/apolitical/tree/master/APOLITICAL
> > 
> > Things have happened which are rather terrifying to me. Most
> > notably:
> > 
> >    1. "The Rust Core Team believes that tech is and always will be
> >       political" [1].
> >    2. Raphael left LLVM [2]
> >    3. Or the attempt to make poor rubocop change its name. A
> > software
> >       which is maintained by a guy from Bulgaria. [3]
> >    4. Or the fall of RMS (I know he's insane, but he's also
> > insanely
> >       competent) and temporarily Linus himself.
> >    5. At Google, James Damore was fired for writing a memo [4] he
> >       wrote as (requested) feedback on one of their diversity
> >       seminars.
> > 
> > What we're experiencing in my estimation is rather totalitarian:
> > The
> > move of politics and political views into absolutely non-political
> > projects. Personally, I believe this is extremely dangerous,
> > regardless of from where the ideology is coming from. Especially,
> > because it will not stop demanding more and more.
> > 
> > And I don't care which idea or ideology precisely we are talking
> > about: It does not belong into technology. Tech should be based on
> > the
> > idea of "improving" the world by providing its inhabitants with
> > high
> > quality software.
> > 
> > And by the way, this is the reason why tech projects have such a
> > hard
> > time defending themselves. Tech is insanely complex, and if you
> > want
> > to thrive in this field you'll have to spend a lot of your
> > attention
> > and time on a specific topic to become an expert in it. Techies
> > often
> > don't read much news, don't necessarily spend the time necessary to
> > understand large issues outside of tech. They don't understand what
> > is
> > happening and why, and how to defend themselves against arguments
> > and
> > pushes they feel aren't good. Arguing on politics takes time and
> > effort. Techies just want to be left alone and code. But /they/
> > won't
> > leave them alone. They are better in politics and arguments; so if
> > nothing happens, they will eventually win. After all, what's the
> > problem of changing your project's logo to a green tree for a
> > month?
> > Don't you care about global warming? Don't you think we all have to
> > speak up now? And so you agree, wanting to be in peace at home.
> > It's
> > just a logo after all, who cares. And you will be in peace. For a
> > while. Then one day they will come and demand that you fire one of
> > your top contributors, because he did or wrote (or is) something in
> > his free time which is not judged by them to be appropriate. So
> > then
> > you pursue him to apologize. But he's stubborn: "I have done
> > nothing
> > wrong. I won't apologize". Crap. Why doesn't he just apologize, so
> > you
> > can be left alone and code? It's just an apology, after all, right?
> > It's just words. And a few years down this road they will ask why
> > it
> > is that there are so few people with physical attribute X or from
> > identity group Y in your project. Why don't you bother to increase
> > their represantation? Is there maybe something hostile about your
> > community? You should put a statement on your website, stating that
> > you are standing on the right side. But then nothing changes. Bad.
> > So
> > maybe there will be a bad PR one day from a person with
> > characteristics X and Y. And you should pull it, should you not?
> > Then
> > they will leave you at peace and you can "just code", won't they?
> > 
> > And it will go on and on and on until one day you might realize
> > that
> > you should have spoken up earlier and defended your project.
> > 
> > Because it's not "just a logo", it's not just "a banner", it's not
> > "just words" – it's about wether a non-political project will
> > become
> > political or not. And you won't be the one who decides which
> > politics
> > it will be, when you just bow to an external (or even internal) mob
> > who demands changes. In five years it might be another mob,
> > demanding
> > different or even more radical changes.
> > 
> > That's what this document is intended for. I designed it as a set
> > of,
> > hopefully decent rules, but mostly as a public statement you can
> > include like a software license. It states: We don't want politics
> > here. Regardless of which group you belong to, you can participate,
> > but you have to leave your politics outside of this project. When
> > your
> > ideas and PRs are good, we will pull them. And if one day some
> > ideologue comes, who has never participated or contributed in your
> > project and demands you change this or that, you can refer to your
> > manifest and say: "We don't do that here. If you think your
> > suggestion
> > is of such value, you can fork us, set up a new website, register a
> > domain and then include a statement about president X of country Y
> > on
> > your forked version of our website. And we will see whether the
> > users
> > like your change so much they will prefer your version."
> > 
> > End of monologue.
> > 
> > I'm happy about suggestions on improving the phrasing or the
> > content
> > and am curious what you think about the whole idea.
> > 
> > Philipp
> > 
> > [1] https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/06/04/Rust-1.44.0.html
> > [2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/122922.html
> > [3] https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rubocop/issues/8091
> > [4] 
> > https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/read-the-google-diversity-memo-that-that-everyone-is-freaking-out-about/
> > 
> > * Ideolog*ues* can participate, but they have to discuss their
> >   ideology elsewhere, outside the project.
> > 
Details
Message ID
<C3XVK76FDIXQ.Q7LCBLCFX96Y@homura>
In-Reply-To
<17b93f43d9d38414dce866a6cef0136473b0bf79.camel@posteo.de> (view parent)
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
Guys, I'm gonna nip this discussion in the bud. Everyone has said their
piece, and I don't want a debate to ensue. Hereby declaring this thread
off-topic.
Details
Message ID
<20200704134645.cKwJY%x@icyphox.sh>
In-Reply-To
<D88E9AA0-C712-4249-B854-EC0EF50FB632@eli.li> (view parent)
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
> To start, I'd ask why if the goal hear is to remove "politics" from
> software, use the levers and mechanisms of politics itself (eg a
> license) to enact the removal of politics? 

As much as I agree with the idea behind the license, I don't think it's
meant /for/ a license and is better suited as a CoC, as Eli has rightly
said.

But yes, the new trend of politicizing software is extremely bothersome,
especially because most of it tends to be relevant mostly in the United
States and people from other countries really couldn't care less. This
is not to say that the problems the US has don't exist -- but you don't
see $BIGTECH putting up banners for say, issues that India has or
Singapore has (despite the company having presence in those countries).

Politics and software don't mix. Period.
Reply to thread Export thread (mbox)