3 ms·
My question is: Who gets to define whats controversial? Everyone has an agenda. Seems to be that whoever is best at getting people outraged gets to control th
by pryelluw 10y ago
My question is:
Who gets to define whats controversial?
Everyone has an agenda. Seems to be that whoever is best at getting people outraged gets to control them.
- nebabyte 10y agoThe person in charge "Well who gets to decide who's in charge" Whoever takes charge. It's like they're missing the point of OSS. If you don't like who's in charge, remix and make your own. Whoever is the more capable leader will have a successful project. "Beliefs" and all that other crap get left at the door, the race is for the medal - in this case whoever has the best project wins. Though I suppose trying to achieve that with ideological witchhunts (and what, forming a 'cult of coding'? haha) is a viable strat too. LG was dominated by Kimura Kei for a while
- pryelluw 10y agoBy applying your explanation it could be that this whole situation is a power grab from people who want to take over the project. Does that make sense?
- nebabyte 10y agoSo? If the software they develop is superior, use it. If not, don't. If you're so concerned about "who has power", either do a better job or learn to live with the tools they give you.
- pryelluw 10y agoThat's a good point but it also shows how easy it would be to discredit a whole project or maintainer.
- irishcoffee 10y ago> Who gets to define whats controversial? I didn't make it very clear, that was exactly my point. Any view will be controversial to _someone_ regardless of the view. Which is why I posit that it is impossible to have a community leader posses non-controversial views. Unless of course the community is an echo-chamber, rejecting all who do not assimilate.
- pryelluw 10y agoThats true. You cant please everybody. Who ever made the info public did so with the purpose of discrediting the victim.