3 ms·

I heard about all that business when it happened a while back. To be honest I think it was a total over-reaction by Github. I'm of the opinion that using the w

by SamUK96 10y ago

I heard about all that business when it happened a while back. To be honest I think it was a total over-reaction by Github. I'm of the opinion that using the word "retard" in a github repo is stupid and unprofessional, and makes your project look far worse, but why, seriously, why couldn't github leave free-market dynamics to let this kind of stuff to die? Shut I man's mouth, and they'll only try harder to speak. Ignore them and they'll have to focus on why people aren't paying attention.

hood_syntax 10y ago
Far worse than that situation, which I totally agree it's better to let the project die, was the master/slave drama with redis. You may not agree with me, but besides the terminology being common in the area, there were backwards compatibility reasons not to change the terms. It really bothered me how the community dogpiled onto that thread, it got pretty nasty iirc, and all for political correctness (the reasonable if misguided kind).
pfranz 10y ago
(I don't mean to rehash the previously linked discussion) > Shut I man's mouth, and they'll only try harder to speak. Ignore them and they'll have to focus on why people aren't paying attention. This article is titled "trolls" but is about gender-based harassment. If what you said was true, why did they need to hire an outside firm to deal with it? I much prefer a hands-off approach, but the tech community hasn't had the best record of self-policing and being inclusive. And proactive methods, like ones mentioned in the article, have proven to address these issues. (admittedly, I think P.C. has gone a bit far at time and alienated and stifled the community) GitHub is a private company. If "free-market dynamics" tries to turn GitHub into a political discussion platform, that might not be the kind of service GitHub wants to provide. I think it's also fair for you to criticize that you feel this is overreaching since you're a participant in their community. Even if market dynamics shoo bad apples away you still have a dead repo with unwelcoming content hosted indefinitely. Every repo on GitHub is associated with their brand. Creating a repo is easy, naming things is hard, and individuals often create things with blasphemous or offensive names just for fun. While I don't want to be stifling, I have seen people talk about concern for new or interesting tools having blasphemous names that would cause trouble if they tried to use at their company. Personally, I don't care, but I'm glad they care about how they're perceived and don't want to see poor or negligent stewardship (like happened to sourceforge and google code).

by SamUK96 10y ago

hood_syntax 10y ago

Far worse than that situation, which I totally agree it's better to let the project die, was the master/slave drama with redis. You may not agree with me, but besides the terminology being common in the area, there were backwards compatibility reasons not to change the terms. It really bothered me how the community dogpiled onto that thread, it got pretty nasty iirc, and all for political correctness (the reasonable if misguided kind).

pfranz 10y ago

(I don't mean to rehash the previously linked discussion) > Shut I man's mouth, and they'll only try harder to speak. Ignore them and they'll have to focus on why people aren't paying attention. This article is titled "trolls" but is about gender-based harassment. If what you said was true, why did they need to hire an outside firm to deal with it? I much prefer a hands-off approach, but the tech community hasn't had the best record of self-policing and being inclusive. And proactive methods, like ones mentioned in the article, have proven to address these issues. (admittedly, I think P.C. has gone a bit far at time and alienated and stifled the community) GitHub is a private company. If "free-market dynamics" tries to turn GitHub into a political discussion platform, that might not be the kind of service GitHub wants to provide. I think it's also fair for you to criticize that you feel this is overreaching since you're a participant in their community. Even if market dynamics shoo bad apples away you still have a dead repo with unwelcoming content hosted indefinitely. Every repo on GitHub is associated with their brand. Creating a repo is easy, naming things is hard, and individuals often create things with blasphemous or offensive names just for fun. While I don't want to be stifling, I have seen people talk about concern for new or interesting tools having blasphemous names that would cause trouble if they tried to use at their company. Personally, I don't care, but I'm glad they care about how they're perceived and don't want to see poor or negligent stewardship (like happened to sourceforge and google code).