4 ms·

> This feature allows project owners to block users, and prevents blocked users from(...) forking repositories ... People here don't get that some organisation

> This feature allows project owners to block users, and prevents blocked users from(...) forking repositories ... People here don't get that some organisations and individuals will use it to push block lists, unrelated to any Github activity, and depending on your actions on Twitter, Facebook G+ or whatever you'll be blocked in advance from forking, contributing, interacting with a large range or repositories ... same as Twitter Block lists ...

geofft 11y ago
You can always run `git clone`, make a new repo, and run `git push`. Also, this feature already existed for individual accounts, for years, and worked that way. I haven't heard of blocklists for GitHub ever existing. Why do you think this is different for organizations?
rootlocus 11y ago
I get it that you may want to block certain people from bringing negativity to the community (via comments, issues, etc.), but how does preventing them from forking repositories help? It sounds anti-opensource.
- Namidairo 11y ago
  Probably to prevent them from doing bad things to the fork graph (eg. Abusive or inflammatory commit messages would come to mind).
  - nv-vn 11y ago
    Then just hide their part of the graph?
    - grayclhn 11y ago
      That's what it does.
      - CM30 11y ago
        Why not just make the feature NOT remove the button, but simply hide their fork from the graph? Seems rather simple to implement, and a lot more in the 'spirit' of open source.
TorKlingberg 11y ago
If a project on Github blocks you for something you said on Twitter, why do you want to contribute to that project anyway?
- odinduty 11y ago
  And why not? A project is a project, and some twat who happens to have the keys to the Twitter account of that project should not define how you should feel about a community.
- clevernickname 11y ago
  Good projects can be infiltrated by overzealous politickers. The @freebsdgirl debacle is a particularly good example of this, as she was also responsible for a certain block bot.

geofft 11y ago

You can always run `git clone`, make a new repo, and run `git push`. Also, this feature already existed for individual accounts, for years, and worked that way. I haven't heard of blocklists for GitHub ever existing. Why do you think this is different for organizations?

rootlocus 11y ago

I get it that you may want to block certain people from bringing negativity to the community (via comments, issues, etc.), but how does preventing them from forking repositories help? It sounds anti-opensource.

Namidairo 11y ago
Probably to prevent them from doing bad things to the fork graph (eg. Abusive or inflammatory commit messages would come to mind).
- nv-vn 11y ago
  Then just hide their part of the graph?
  - grayclhn 11y ago
    That's what it does.
    - CM30 11y ago
      Why not just make the feature NOT remove the button, but simply hide their fork from the graph? Seems rather simple to implement, and a lot more in the 'spirit' of open source.

TorKlingberg 11y ago

If a project on Github blocks you for something you said on Twitter, why do you want to contribute to that project anyway?

odinduty 11y ago
And why not? A project is a project, and some twat who happens to have the keys to the Twitter account of that project should not define how you should feel about a community.
clevernickname 11y ago
Good projects can be infiltrated by overzealous politickers. The @freebsdgirl debacle is a particularly good example of this, as she was also responsible for a certain block bot.