3 ms·

I agree that Github's positions are ultimately negative beyond the scope of the company and product itself. Ironically the GitLab CEO has also injected politic

I agree that Github's positions are ultimately negative beyond the scope of the company and product itself. Ironically the GitLab CEO has also injected politics where it didn't belong. Thus is the power of open source, even though I don't agree with GitLab Inc's politics, I can take the code base and host it myself.

sytse 11y ago
Where do you feel I injected politics where it didn't belong? I want to understand where you're coming from.
- exstudent2 11y ago
  https://archive.is/d1Sd7 https://archive.is/d1Sd7 You should not have got involved in this as a company. I want to support you and do self-host GitLab but because of this I won't be a customer.
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    That's really disappointing and something I'll be watching for a proper resolution. Gitlab appears to be getting involved with how people seek anonymity on Twitter, which is just odd.
  - sytse 11y ago
    Thanks for posting the link to the Gamergate conversation, I understand where you are coming from now.
    - exstudent2 11y ago
      So you stand by your decision to remove a repo for political reasons?
      - sytse 11y ago
        I prefer not to talk about GamerGate anymore. I've made many public comments about this and have nothing more to add.
        BobCat 11y ago
        The topic is your removal of a community organizing resource. You made false accusations about the group, so you should have expected disapprobation from them. You still have not apologized.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      I'll clarify the issue for those not involved with #gamergate in any way from someone who was only briefly involved by following conversations for a 2 month period (Nov and Dec 2014). By "clarify", I mean "explain why this is an issue for some people who are pro-#GamerGate", and just now I already lost some readers. That's part of the problem. You (syste) stated this from the previously mentioned discussion: >The idea is to get feedback from the GitLab community, not [to] hear from the sides of GamerGate (which is an undertaking in itself). The mistake you made here, from the eyes of anyone involved in GamerGate, is that there are many misinformed people that believe what the media is saying. Keep in mind that the media is what is going up against GamerGate. There is no benefit for the media to make Gamergate look good. If they can spin #GG off as a hate group and get everyone to hate/ignore #GG, that's to the media benefit. For a political comparison, this is like asking Russians who only listen to Russian news about the Russia/Ukraine conflict and siding with Russia without listening to the Ukraine side of the story or anyone who has news from outside of Russia. It's playing into Russian propaganda without ever hearing the other side of the story, because Russian media said so! [DISCLAIMER] By going with the media's narrative, without investigating both sides [IMPORTANT], you are reinforcing the media narrative for the general public. Which won't be a problem to anyone buying into the media narrative and won't be a problem for the media. But it will be a problem for #GamerGate people just like how listening to Russian Media would be a problem for Ukrainians. Personally - I will never recommend someone to use GitLab because of this. You handwaved the issue away in a manner that ignores any politics behind it and by doing so took a political side without knowledge. That is not a position I am willing to stand behind. If you sided with the media narrative after looking at both sides of the issue [0] then I'd be neutral on the matter and wouldn't have an issue recommending people move from GitHub to GitLab. You can tell by my tone I wouldn't agree with your position, but I wouldn't fault you for having it. Currently, in my eyes, you're at fault for your position because it is an uninformed position. [0] http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/ http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/ [DISCLAIMER] I don't mean to conflate the severity of the two. It's an analogy meant to aid in explanation. I'm adding this disclaimer because too many people are quick to denounce an entire explanation because they take an analogy as a literal comparison rather than an explanatory device and it's driving me fucking mad, so I include this disclaimer to show that I do not mean to compare the two literally - just figuratively to aid in explanation in a scenario they can more readily understand and identify with. So there.
  - nadams 11y ago
    I upvoted you only because people should know where companies like gitlab stand on these kinds of issues. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing what he did was right - but it is important to know about it. I host my own free source code hosting service and I couldn't tell you what I would have done in his position. This question isn't meant to spark a heated debate (I'm on the fence and could argue either way) - but I'm honestly curious on how you think it should have been handled? I honestly want to know if there is an action that benefits everyone.
    - exstudent2 11y ago
      Thank you for the upvote, I wish more people would engage in conversation vs. just downvote opinions they don't agree with. I think the best course of action is to have a policy of: "We don't delete repos unless required by law." That would satisfy me as a potential customer. I think commenting on Twitter and getting involved at all was probably a mistake unless they were going to stick with the above philosophy. All they did was call attention to the issue then delete the repo once everyone was watching. The tweet seems like an honest mistake since I don't think they wanted to get involved with this controversy. They made it though and had to make some decision on what to do. I think they chose the most damaging option. The staff doesn't have to personally endorse the opinions of their users and the repos they host. I wouldn't expect that of them, but they shouldn't delete repos they don't agree with.
      - nadams 11y ago
        Would you be ok with a policy of: > We don't delete repos unless explicitly requested by law enforcement or a DMCA takedown notice. What you said could be interpreted as "well...this repo was technically breaking the law so that's why we deleted it" - I would rather say "I deleted it to cooperate with law enforcement". And the DMCA takedown policy is required to protect service providers in the event some idiot decides to upload copyrighted material - the RIAA/MPAA won't go after the service provider they will just ask them to take it down.
        sytse 11y ago

sytse 11y ago

Where do you feel I injected politics where it didn't belong? I want to understand where you're coming from.

exstudent2 11y ago
https://archive.is/d1Sd7 https://archive.is/d1Sd7 You should not have got involved in this as a company. I want to support you and do self-host GitLab but because of this I won't be a customer.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  That's really disappointing and something I'll be watching for a proper resolution. Gitlab appears to be getting involved with how people seek anonymity on Twitter, which is just odd.
- sytse 11y ago
  Thanks for posting the link to the Gamergate conversation, I understand where you are coming from now.
  - exstudent2 11y ago
    So you stand by your decision to remove a repo for political reasons?
    - sytse 11y ago
      I prefer not to talk about GamerGate anymore. I've made many public comments about this and have nothing more to add.
      - BobCat 11y ago
        The topic is your removal of a community organizing resource. You made false accusations about the group, so you should have expected disapprobation from them. You still have not apologized.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    I'll clarify the issue for those not involved with #gamergate in any way from someone who was only briefly involved by following conversations for a 2 month period (Nov and Dec 2014). By "clarify", I mean "explain why this is an issue for some people who are pro-#GamerGate", and just now I already lost some readers. That's part of the problem. You (syste) stated this from the previously mentioned discussion: >The idea is to get feedback from the GitLab community, not [to] hear from the sides of GamerGate (which is an undertaking in itself). The mistake you made here, from the eyes of anyone involved in GamerGate, is that there are many misinformed people that believe what the media is saying. Keep in mind that the media is what is going up against GamerGate. There is no benefit for the media to make Gamergate look good. If they can spin #GG off as a hate group and get everyone to hate/ignore #GG, that's to the media benefit. For a political comparison, this is like asking Russians who only listen to Russian news about the Russia/Ukraine conflict and siding with Russia without listening to the Ukraine side of the story or anyone who has news from outside of Russia. It's playing into Russian propaganda without ever hearing the other side of the story, because Russian media said so! [DISCLAIMER] By going with the media's narrative, without investigating both sides [IMPORTANT], you are reinforcing the media narrative for the general public. Which won't be a problem to anyone buying into the media narrative and won't be a problem for the media. But it will be a problem for #GamerGate people just like how listening to Russian Media would be a problem for Ukrainians. Personally - I will never recommend someone to use GitLab because of this. You handwaved the issue away in a manner that ignores any politics behind it and by doing so took a political side without knowledge. That is not a position I am willing to stand behind. If you sided with the media narrative after looking at both sides of the issue [0] then I'd be neutral on the matter and wouldn't have an issue recommending people move from GitHub to GitLab. You can tell by my tone I wouldn't agree with your position, but I wouldn't fault you for having it. Currently, in my eyes, you're at fault for your position because it is an uninformed position. [0] http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/ http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/ [DISCLAIMER] I don't mean to conflate the severity of the two. It's an analogy meant to aid in explanation. I'm adding this disclaimer because too many people are quick to denounce an entire explanation because they take an analogy as a literal comparison rather than an explanatory device and it's driving me fucking mad, so I include this disclaimer to show that I do not mean to compare the two literally - just figuratively to aid in explanation in a scenario they can more readily understand and identify with. So there.
- nadams 11y ago
  I upvoted you only because people should know where companies like gitlab stand on these kinds of issues. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing what he did was right - but it is important to know about it. I host my own free source code hosting service and I couldn't tell you what I would have done in his position. This question isn't meant to spark a heated debate (I'm on the fence and could argue either way) - but I'm honestly curious on how you think it should have been handled? I honestly want to know if there is an action that benefits everyone.
  - exstudent2 11y ago
    Thank you for the upvote, I wish more people would engage in conversation vs. just downvote opinions they don't agree with. I think the best course of action is to have a policy of: "We don't delete repos unless required by law." That would satisfy me as a potential customer. I think commenting on Twitter and getting involved at all was probably a mistake unless they were going to stick with the above philosophy. All they did was call attention to the issue then delete the repo once everyone was watching. The tweet seems like an honest mistake since I don't think they wanted to get involved with this controversy. They made it though and had to make some decision on what to do. I think they chose the most damaging option. The staff doesn't have to personally endorse the opinions of their users and the repos they host. I wouldn't expect that of them, but they shouldn't delete repos they don't agree with.
    - nadams 11y ago
      Would you be ok with a policy of: > We don't delete repos unless explicitly requested by law enforcement or a DMCA takedown notice. What you said could be interpreted as "well...this repo was technically breaking the law so that's why we deleted it" - I would rather say "I deleted it to cooperate with law enforcement". And the DMCA takedown policy is required to protect service providers in the event some idiot decides to upload copyrighted material - the RIAA/MPAA won't go after the service provider they will just ask them to take it down.
      - sytse 11y ago