@ebel 'course the comments are what you'd expect... burn HN to the ground tbh. but yeah, very glad Guix is speaking against rms here
With all respect for the opinion of the Guile maintainer (that is as valid as Stallmann one and any other person), I do not agree with the basic assumption here.
#FreeSoftware is NOT designed to "empower" anyone. Empowering people is a worth personal goal of the #Guile maintainer and many other FS #hacker, but it's NOT what qualify software as #free at least not through #CoC.
@Shamar I dunno. The whole thing about users controlling their software, is users in control. Users are empowered.
"judge people by their skills, not race/gender" is part of the hacker spirit for decades.
So yes, IMO it all fits together.
I think the whole thing is slightly different: it's not about people controlling their software but about people hacking their software.
Users are not just "in control", they are turned to hackers.
Judging people has never being an hacker thing: it's a waste of time and energy. Hackers judge arguments and artifacts. Skills change over time: they are not evaluation tool.
Judging people is for guys fed by ESR's propaganda, but it never helps to learn anything. It's pointless.
> Garfield deserves the right to be judged by his code alone.
I don't think anybody should judge anybody else. Thus nobody should have the right to judge or to be judged in a Free Software project.
There are courts and laws for this.
Now I think it's totally fine to tell someone: I don't want to work with you: fork the project if you like.
I've been said so myself and when my OS was born I saw it was a good thing.
Yet you have to have the balls to say so.
I would have such balls. Because it makes clear you are responsible to that decision because of your arbitrary decision.
Judging people "by code alone" means someone have the right to judge them. Nobody has. The leaders of a community have the rights to ban anybody or to refuse any patch. They should explain why they do so, but it's not a judgement on the person.
And it's always an invite to fork.
In the context (wider) of this blog post, the judgement was already done by some people from the association. They "judged actions", it seems. Though luck for that.
I won't talk for him, but I do not think he is interested in judging someone or why he should. Maybe skills? Personally I do not want to fall in the trap of elitist communities. A contributor is a contributor.
Complex topic. I tend to agree with http://hintjens.com/blog:120
Well I also think that technology is a prosecution of Politics by other means so I support people who try to improve the world through technology (whatever for "improve" means to them, as long as "the world" is what they want to improve).
If you see a way software can improve the life of a weak minority feel free to code it! But the problem with SJW in Free Software is that they do not code to realize their vision, they try to bully others to join it.
I think that diversity in free software community is an important value, because different cultures might lead to different experiments and to learn different things, as there are different curiosities at work.
But such different explorations are often better served by hard forks, not by imposing to a community the culture of a subgroup (eg the US workplace hypocrisy, as CoCs do).
If you think a new Linux syscall might help, say, blinds, please code it!
And if Linus doesn't want it in its kernel, make your own kernel!
Same for a social media (eg Mastodon) or an office suite.
The right to modify free software is what give you the right to fight for your ideals through technology, and you should really do that!
But not as a SJW... fight as an hacker!
@Shamar I have never heard a decent definition of "SJW". To me, being concerned about hacking is similar to be concerned about social justice.
@61 You're free to do that if you want. But to me, the ideas of Free Software are basically a form of Social Justice.
Back in #nodejs #irc there used to be some lass who would lash out against anyone who said "hello guys" (apparently that was sexist 🙄) or anyone who said "bless you" (because apparently if you don't believe in God nobody else should).
That pseudo #social twaddle helps nobody. Being able to dialogue and find common shared values with those we disagree with does.
@61 One can definitly make the case that the modern slogan of "believe women" has been weaponised against, esp., black men in USA, in the form of lynching. But I don't think that's what you're talking about here. 😉
I gave you an example in my previous comment. The girl who used to police the nodejs irc
@61 so somone saying "guys" excludes excludes women? That's a bigot to you? That's the best you have??
I think you might have misread my previous message. The bigot was the lass berating whoever would use words such as "guys" or make references to God. Pretty sure she had set a word list filter and just sat there waiting to pounce on whoever was trying to ask a question or give an answer. She might still be there for all that I know, try checking out the irc channel in question if you're so inclined. 😛
@61 no, e.g. the HOT code of conduct, the diversity-talk list, the ettiquette guidelines, etc etc
You lost me there. Any links?
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!