6 ms·

None at all, except that a contributor who participates in the project, but objects to a position or practice of the advocated organization is presented with an

None at all, except that a contributor who participates in the project, but objects to a position or practice of the advocated organization is presented with an ethical dilemma that is avoidable. BLM is not alone in being controversial in some of it's positions. Lots of other advocacy groups (Autism Speaks for instance), have a polarizing affect on people. I think it is better to avoid these ethical dilemmas in favor of cooperation. It is easy to condemn and exclude based on ideas, it is much harder and more worthy to find ideas we all agree on and build useful things for everyone.

LatteLazy 6y ago
Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to say but I couldn't put it that well :)
krapp 6y ago
But most people seem to have no such ethical dilemma. The dilemma only exists for those whose political views are already opposed to those of the project owners, and who refuse to contribute on that account - neither a neutral or apolitical position, but one of intransigent political opposition. So rather than simply avoiding ethical dilemmas in favor of cooperation (because plenty of people are cooperating) what's being advocated here is concession to anti-BLM advocates exclusively as a prerequisite for their participation, and those are the only people condemning or demanding exclusion of anything (specifically, the political views of the project owners.) Because again, no one is saying that people who don't support BLM aren't allowed to participate. It's open source software, and as is often mentioned when someone objects to a project owner's right-wing views, software is apolitical, and contributing in and of itself is not advocacy. And forking is always an option.
- blargathon 6y ago
  All of that is valid, and I don't disagree on most points. However, we have a stupidly polarized political climate right now. It makes "agree to disagree" pretty tough since the press and social media tend to stir people up. I think it's better to rise above the noise and focus on building things. I know people on both sides of the political spectrum that are good people and good engineers. I'd rather focus on common ground.

LatteLazy 6y ago

Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to say but I couldn't put it that well :)

krapp 6y ago

But most people seem to have no such ethical dilemma. The dilemma only exists for those whose political views are already opposed to those of the project owners, and who refuse to contribute on that account - neither a neutral or apolitical position, but one of intransigent political opposition. So rather than simply avoiding ethical dilemmas in favor of cooperation (because plenty of people are cooperating) what's being advocated here is concession to anti-BLM advocates exclusively as a prerequisite for their participation, and those are the only people condemning or demanding exclusion of anything (specifically, the political views of the project owners.) Because again, no one is saying that people who don't support BLM aren't allowed to participate. It's open source software, and as is often mentioned when someone objects to a project owner's right-wing views, software is apolitical, and contributing in and of itself is not advocacy. And forking is always an option.

blargathon 6y ago
All of that is valid, and I don't disagree on most points. However, we have a stupidly polarized political climate right now. It makes "agree to disagree" pretty tough since the press and social media tend to stir people up. I think it's better to rise above the noise and focus on building things. I know people on both sides of the political spectrum that are good people and good engineers. I'd rather focus on common ground.