3 ms·

The OP's point is a bit off topic but this statement deserves a response. > You shouldn't need to compromise your basic values to write software. If you belie

The OP's point is a bit off topic but this statement deserves a response. > You shouldn't need to compromise your basic values to write software. If you believe this then you must also believe that Brendan Eich should still have his job at Mozilla. And that his believe that the state should not grant homosexual marriage licences is of no consequence to his participation in software development. Brendan Eich should not be forced to compromise his basic values to write software. Basic values does not = (your values). Within the 7+ Billion people on this planet there are quite a lot of conflicting 'basic values'. If you can not embrace them all in your programming community (or better yet exclude values altogether) then the core assertion is disingenuous and false. Society is multidimensional. The separation of vectors is out of necessity to ensure the integrity of each vector. Without this integrity you have abandon the possibility for any vector to move towards enlightenment and progress. Politics, Ethics, Values, Religion Sciences and the Arts are all different dimensions. With a wide spectrum of ideas and beliefs in each one of them. Many of these ideas are contradictory and in conflict. That is the healthy and necessary state of an enlightened society. You separate Software development from beliefs for the same reason that you separate Mathematics from beliefs. The progression of Mathematics has no political or social bound. If you can not accept that Mathematics is distinguishable and separate from your beliefs then you have truly embraced an intellectual and cultural regressive ideology. Likewise if you can not accept that people who you do not share beliefs with can and are advancing the breath and depth of programming and computer science then you have embraced an intellectually and culturally regressive ideology.

legulere 10y ago
Of course like you said Brendan basic values were being questioned. But I think you're taking the comment you're replying to a bit too literal. What it probably meant was that things besides technical points, especially interpersonal ones do actually matter. You could argue that a lot of people's basic values were compromised by Brendan Eich. And I think you're right that you should try to keep things as separate as possible. But that's never 100% possible. Underlying the technical problems there lie social ones. If you tell yourself that you're keeping things purely rational and technological you are lying to yourself. You still need to work with other people to get things done for instance. Even the GNU project is strongly occupied with moral thoughts about their definition of freedom of software. Being the greatest genius doesn't help you one bit if you can't communicate those ideas and get help spreading them.
- generic_user 10y ago
  > Of course like you said Brendan basic values were being questioned. > You could argue that a lot of people's basic values were compromised by Brendan Eich. This sort of highlights the irreconcilable dilemma of the claim that your basic values who ever you are and what ever your values are should be supported by a software project. That simply can not happen. Its a false statement. You either have to have one persons/groups basic values as prerequisite for participation and exclude everyone else who has different values. Or you mutually exclude personal basic values as a prerequisite and invite everyone to participate in solving the larger technological goal. What I think is being lost here, intentionally or not is the idea of mutual respect. You can have mutual respect with people you do not share common values with and still work together, share friendship and solve problems. If Open Source / Free Software, can not produce projects where people with different values can have mutual respect and compassion for one another and work together to achieve a common goal then there are serious, serious problems for FLOSS going forward.

legulere 10y ago

Of course like you said Brendan basic values were being questioned. But I think you're taking the comment you're replying to a bit too literal. What it probably meant was that things besides technical points, especially interpersonal ones do actually matter. You could argue that a lot of people's basic values were compromised by Brendan Eich. And I think you're right that you should try to keep things as separate as possible. But that's never 100% possible. Underlying the technical problems there lie social ones. If you tell yourself that you're keeping things purely rational and technological you are lying to yourself. You still need to work with other people to get things done for instance. Even the GNU project is strongly occupied with moral thoughts about their definition of freedom of software. Being the greatest genius doesn't help you one bit if you can't communicate those ideas and get help spreading them.

generic_user 10y ago
> Of course like you said Brendan basic values were being questioned. > You could argue that a lot of people's basic values were compromised by Brendan Eich. This sort of highlights the irreconcilable dilemma of the claim that your basic values who ever you are and what ever your values are should be supported by a software project. That simply can not happen. Its a false statement. You either have to have one persons/groups basic values as prerequisite for participation and exclude everyone else who has different values. Or you mutually exclude personal basic values as a prerequisite and invite everyone to participate in solving the larger technological goal. What I think is being lost here, intentionally or not is the idea of mutual respect. You can have mutual respect with people you do not share common values with and still work together, share friendship and solve problems. If Open Source / Free Software, can not produce projects where people with different values can have mutual respect and compassion for one another and work together to achieve a common goal then there are serious, serious problems for FLOSS going forward.