Has anyone read the pull request? For those that didn't, here it is: + We do business with customers with values that are incompatible with [our own values](

Has anyone read the pull request? For those that didn't, here it is: + We do business with customers with values that are incompatible with [our own values](/handbook/values/) for the following reasons: + + 1. Our mission is 'everyone can contribute', while there is a [code of conduct for contributing](https://about.gitlab.com/community/contribute/code-of-conduct/) we want to get as close to everyone as possible. + 1. We [do not discuss politics in the workplace](/handbook/values/#religion-and-politics-at-work-) and decisions about what customer to serve might get political. + 1. [Efficiency is one of our values](/handbook/values/#efficiency) and vetting customers is time consuming and potentially distracting. + 1. It maps to the MIT expat open source license we use that [doesn't discriminate against fields of endeavor](https://apebox.org/wordpress/rants/456). Of the "we do not discuss politics in the workplace", this is the quote from the handbook: We generally don't discuss religion or politics in public forums because it is easy to alienate people that have a minority opinion. It's acceptable to bring up these topics in social contexts such as coffee chats and real-life meetups with other coworkers, but always be aware of cultural sensitivities, exercise your best judgement, and make sure you stay within the boundaries of our Code of Conduct. Here's the problem: this policy can be used to protect people, and disenfranchise people. On the one hand, you can use this policy to prevent white people from loudly supporting a white supremacist political leader in an office with a very small percentage of people of color. Banning talk of politics here will make it easier to stop dog-whistle racism before it even starts. On the other hand, you can also use this policy to shut conversations by minority groups who want to support politicians who are improving the lives of people of color. If one goal your company has is, for example, to make your company more ethnically diverse, it would perhaps behoove you to allow different ethnic groups to discuss the political issues they face, and raise awareness of issues critical to them. Banning such speech makes it much harder for them to advocate for better treatment, and educate people in the workplace about the issues they face. Everyone who thinks this is controversial is falling into the trap of trying to judge a complex issue with emotion, rather than complex rational thought. If you literally decided your opinion about this within 30 seconds, chances are it wasn't very well thought out. I'm willing to bet the CEO is just as guilty of such rushed decision-making. -- But there were three other points in the PR!! The last of which I think is really worth considering: "The MIT expat open source license [..] doesn't discriminate against fields of endeavor." The most common example given is that "you cannot stop an abortion clinic, or an anti-abortion activist, from using the source code". This is an incredibly important part of our society that protects minority groups. In 2012, in Colorado, a bakery discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to make their wedding cake, because the bakery owners didn't approve of gay marriage. This was (rightly, I think) found by the courts to be illegal discrimination. But you could also consider this case a form of discrimination of field of endeavor, if what you're endeavoring-for is to be married while gay. You can't refuse to make the gay couple a wedding cake - so should you be able to refuse a white supremacist from using your version control tool? This is where we walk into ethical quicksand. There is a l o n g philosophical rabbit hole you can fall down trying to figure out how to treat people you disagree with. People have spent their whole lives going over these issues and literally nobody has figured it out for certain. And that's why I think the policy, based on the third reason, is acceptable. The third reasoning, "vetting customers is time consuming and potentially distracting", is clearly true. We could spend our entire lives arguing the moral philosophy of how to treat people we disagree with, but we'd never get any work done. Sure, you could start an ongoing process of defining who can and can't be a customer, but if it takes any amount of discussion at all, and impacts your business, you're losing money and time, and not necessarily achieving an increase in value, either for society, or your customers/stockholders. So for the sake of expediency, for simplicity, for being the Switzerland of open source, this one company can allow that particular conversation to go on outside its walls, and continue to just bake cakes and write version control tools, and let history be the ultimate arbiter.