Open Source / Free software used to be about, well, open source and free software. The moment "Code of Conducts", "Diversity advocates" and the likes swamp into a project, a situation like this one is bound to happen sooner or later.
Smaller projects are usually immune to this because they often are small, well-knit communities. Large projects attract people who are not about technology, but "to be a part of something bigger", and in today's climate, this attraction extends to people who mean well, but are in fact destructive.
I guess it is time to make sure OSS projects do not become too large for their own good - let's get back to what we are really good at, which is technology, and keep all the diversity / orwellian minilov-stuff to the Humanities. As long as the code is good, noone should give a damn if it comes from a Hindu, a Muslim, an agnostic, a homosexual, someone with green skin or someone who enjoys the consensual presence of their prefered gender in leather. We need to go back to https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
I agree with what I think is your main point. Specifically that:
>As long as the code is good, noone should give a damn if it comes from a Hindu, a Muslim, an agnostic, a homosexual, someone with green skin or someone who enjoys the consensual presence of their prefered gender in leather.
At the end of the day, the code eventually shipped is what an open-source project exists to produce.
However, I'm more hesitant than you are to blame what happened here on diversity advocates. I don't think we want to live in a world where software is produced by homogeneous groups developers of the same age, race, and gender. And I'm not sure diversity happens by accident either. Surely being open and honest about diversity issues helps us build more accepting groups?
In my opinion, what happened here can be considered a failure in diversity, as the leadership of Drupal project decided to discriminate against one of their developers for his lifestyle decisions. This is where a diversity advocate should step in to provide education about consensual BDSM and demand that the leadership not discriminate against someone for their sexual preferences. What happened here is no different than shaming someone for who they sleep with.
I certainly am willing to recognize that projects can be damaged by individuals who push diversity issues too far because, as you said, they want "to be a part of something bigger" but are in fact destructive. But we need to find the right balance, not pretend like diversity will happen automagically.
As a member of the BDSM community I can honestly say that I would no longer feel comfortable participating in the Drupal project. So an advocate here would be perfectly acceptable to me.
> I don't think we want to live in a world where software is produced by homogeneous groups developers of the same age, race, and gender.
Do you own any Chinese or Japanese products? Not necessarily software ones. You almost certainly do.
It's virtually impossible to migrate to China and very, very difficult to migrate to Japan. Therefore most of their products are created by people of the same race. Do you regularly go out of your way to buy other products instead of Chinese/Japanese ones?
My point is: As a consumer I don't really care who provides the best product in terms of price and quality. And if diversity really does provide competitive edge, then I believe we should simply let the market sort it out. As long as there is no discrimination in providing equal opportunities for access to the market for everyone.
Wow. I can't believe what I just read. There's just no nice way to put this. Those Drupal maintainers need to grow up and stop being such childish assholes who try to control everyone and everything. The Drupal project should distance itself from the people causing this kind of hate in the community, not the person who is being persecuted for his ideas (regardless of what they are). I guarantee I can find evidence of much more fowl ideas out there in the community. Should we just ban people for having ideas we don't like that are not even remotely related to the open source work they do? Do we really have so many people vying to compete for all that unpaid open source work that we can afford to kick people out because some idiots disagree over some unrelated and unimportant ideas?
There's a discussion to be had about the correlation between a preoccupation with interacting with the world through computing and "attachment styles" that are not considered to be healthy. (avoidant etc.)
Witch-hunts are a dumb way to pursue this.
If a project (say a cryptographic software project) is full of avoidant/dismissive types, a lot of mainstream people will be naturally so far from engaging with it that they don't notice whether it succeeds or fails.
Our understanding of psychology is so limited that our idea of what's desirable is really at the level of hunches and rumors, sometimes supported by obscure studies. (Obscure mostly because of the size of the configuration space.)
Likely because the topic has been covered already on here multiple times over the past week. The general consensus is "what the fuck Drupal people".
I'm sure an announcement or a drama will come from the upcoming DrupalCon in Baltimore later this month, I'd like to hear some level of closure on this. It's disgusting that a company/circle of devs would treat one of their own like this (although, it's likely an excuse for some other reason).
The article has some traction, the comments are not that uncivil, the posted article doesn't appear to be clickbait, and it does fall within what seem to be the community's standards, being related to the intersection of politics and tech culture.
There doesn't seem to be a reason for it to be flagged, other than prudishness. But, we're supposed to be capable of having civilized discussions here, and we're not all children, so maybe people should just not engage with the thread or hide it if they're unwilling to engage with it.
I am aware of all that. I am also well aware that certain topics -- like this -- do get flagged regularly. In many cases, people appear to be simply reacting to the title, without reading further.
I am trying to establish if the OP is sincerely asking for an explanation, trying to be funny, or if it is a not well worded comment indicating what you have just indicated (i.e. an opinion that it shouldn't be flagged).
Edit: I think the OP may have slightly changed the remark. My recollection is that it initially said "Why is this being flagged?" It is possible I am misremembering it, but whatever.
It is a rather small, specific subgenere of both kink and scifi. With a specific reputation in both communities. Very diffrent from a generic bdsm/scifi situation where I just imagine slave leia.
The evidence suggests that this guy is a creep whose Gorean fantasies are linked to regressive views of women in the real world. Allowing such a person to have a significant contributory, let alone leadership, role in an open source community is bound to leave other contributors massively uncomfortable. To avoid distruption to the community, the community exercised its right to exclude such a person.
Is it their right? Yeah, probably. Is it right? Let's apply a simple test here.
Let's replace every mention of "Gor" or "BDSM" with "Bear" and "Homosexuality". Suddenly, it is clear that the actions actually are puritan kink-shaming. Mentioning someone's sexual deviancies in public like this also comes close to character assassination in the age of the Google.
So what is the result of this? We got one developer/manager ousted, and we got a project that has lost some talent and created a rift between those who do not want to be associated with hate crimes and those who get offended by what happens in other people's bedrooms. In the end, everyone loses.
> Allowing such a person to have a significant contributory, let alone leadership, role in an open source community is bound to leave other contributors massively uncomfortable.
I suggest Drupal find adult contributors then who can contribute. Being uncomfortable or offended isn't a protected class, and you have no business contributing to a public project if you're going to exile or shame colleagues due to their private lives.
It seems the "Code Of Conduct" has jumped the shark and become a weaponized tool for witch hunts.
I'm surprised by how many people didn't see this coming. Rules are intended to weed out undesirables, for whatever reason, even if not objectively moral.
> The evidence suggests that this guy is a creep whose Gorean fantasies are linked to regressive views of women in the real world. Allowing such a person to have a significant contributory, let alone leadership, role in an open source community is bound to leave other contributors massively uncomfortable.
U.S. antidiscrimination law outlaws termination on the basis of one or more of several protected categories which include race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and I believe age.There are other things you can't be fired for, such as taking maternity leave, or conplaining with others about working conditions (if you are the sole complainant, you can be fired).
You can be fired for just about any reason outside of these. And I don't think BDSM or Goreanism count as protected sexual orientations.
Is there not a reasonable argument that he was fired for being an avowed heterosexual? I don't think any company would touch the issue with a ten foot pole.
Open Source / Free software used to be about, well, open source and free software. The moment "Code of Conducts", "Diversity advocates" and the likes swamp into a project, a situation like this one is bound to happen sooner or later.
Smaller projects are usually immune to this because they often are small, well-knit communities. Large projects attract people who are not about technology, but "to be a part of something bigger", and in today's climate, this attraction extends to people who mean well, but are in fact destructive.
I guess it is time to make sure OSS projects do not become too large for their own good - let's get back to what we are really good at, which is technology, and keep all the diversity / orwellian minilov-stuff to the Humanities. As long as the code is good, noone should give a damn if it comes from a Hindu, a Muslim, an agnostic, a homosexual, someone with green skin or someone who enjoys the consensual presence of their prefered gender in leather. We need to go back to https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence