4 ms·

> Someone working two jobs to support a family has little free time for open source development Yeah, so because of that they don't 'select' themselves to cont

> Someone working two jobs to support a family has little free time for open source development Yeah, so because of that they don't 'select' themselves to contribute to FOSS. If they don't have a PC, or can't program, likewise. I'm not responsible for any of that, as a FOSS maintainer, they turn up with patches in their hand, or they don't. If they don't, it's totally out of scope for me. With FOSS I don't even have a way to know such users exist. If they want to contribute something, I can spend my time assisting that to happen, or not, that's the only button I can push. >> cares > slave I mean cares about race in the context of treating their patch differently because of it, this is the implication of the article. Maintainers are motivated to take in useful code. > developers regular post pictures of sexy If devs want to do that, they're not breaking any law. But a lot of contributors (eg, ones logging in on a work pc) would find it intolerable to the project's detriment. They'd lose me at tne word 'discord' anyway.

eesmith 5y ago
Then you agree there are other factors than "self-selection", yes? > If they don't, it's totally out of scope for me This article about "Open Source Communities" and "Open source leadership". There's plenty of FOSS projects which have no communities. I have several. I don't need a CoC since I'm the only point of contact. Do you want a project community? I don't. I'm a lousy community manager. If you do, which people do you want to encourage to be in that community? What social practices do you want to have frowned upon? If you have no limits, what do you do about griefers? If people break those limits, what do you do? > I mean cares about race in the context of treating their patch differently I understand. But why not also care about people who could submit patches but don't? > intolerable to the project's detriment Good point! Losing possible corporate contributions due to NSFW images is very similar to, say, losing possible voluntary contributions for having a rude and aggressive management style, or for other harassing community practices. I'll try to remember that example in future discussions - thanks!
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  You might be surprised how many contributors you might gain with NSFW content. All the evil people need an occupation too. That business doesn't want to be associated with it is mostly due to other reasons. If your open source project is for business, you can of course chose to have any content restriction you want. But there cannot be a general rule. Projects on github are endangered enough to be both, abused and helped by corporate input. I don't the MS embrace care program to be extinguished in phase 2. Most projects are projects of passion and if that passion includes pictures of naked people, who am I to argue against that?
  - eesmith 5y ago
    "evil people"? Do you really think that or are you trying to put words in my mouth? I'm not arguing for or against any type of project. Even those "mostly due to other reasons" include Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications; a FOSS project for nudist organizations may include pictures of naked people and be developed at someone's work even within EEOC guidelines. What I am arguing against are the ideas that, when talking about "WTF is Wrong with Open Source Communities": 1) "self-selection" is all that meaningful, esp. as the piece mentions issues with that concept, and 2) lack of discrimination of patch acceptance due to submitter's protected group membership status is the primary standard.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      You can look at the pipeline of programmers and you will see a demographic pretty similar to open source. The usual story here is that this is also due to discrimination, which isn't based on evidence and should be dismissed without further comment. I do think there are factors, large ones even, that keep some women out of tech and they aren't sourced in biology. None of these are adressed by the suggestions in the article. I think the largest expression of sexism actually comes from people that suggest "solutions" like this. Using stereotypes now to make it clear in how I see positions like these. They wouldn't ever go into a nail saloon, complain about legal security or their behavior and cite it as the reason why they have difficulties hiring males. But it is with males that you insinuate discrimination. That sounds very well like prejudice to me and I also think the referenced studies came to prederterminded conclusion and are of little scientific value. Most open source projects don't contain nudes, but some actually do. I don't think this is a problem. To think this is the reason women are kept out of the industry is nonsensical to me. I am missing even the hint of truth here.

eesmith 5y ago

Then you agree there are other factors than "self-selection", yes? > If they don't, it's totally out of scope for me This article about "Open Source Communities" and "Open source leadership". There's plenty of FOSS projects which have no communities. I have several. I don't need a CoC since I'm the only point of contact. Do you want a project community? I don't. I'm a lousy community manager. If you do, which people do you want to encourage to be in that community? What social practices do you want to have frowned upon? If you have no limits, what do you do about griefers? If people break those limits, what do you do? > I mean cares about race in the context of treating their patch differently I understand. But why not also care about people who could submit patches but don't? > intolerable to the project's detriment Good point! Losing possible corporate contributions due to NSFW images is very similar to, say, losing possible voluntary contributions for having a rude and aggressive management style, or for other harassing community practices. I'll try to remember that example in future discussions - thanks!

raxxorrax 5y ago
You might be surprised how many contributors you might gain with NSFW content. All the evil people need an occupation too. That business doesn't want to be associated with it is mostly due to other reasons. If your open source project is for business, you can of course chose to have any content restriction you want. But there cannot be a general rule. Projects on github are endangered enough to be both, abused and helped by corporate input. I don't the MS embrace care program to be extinguished in phase 2. Most projects are projects of passion and if that passion includes pictures of naked people, who am I to argue against that?
- eesmith 5y ago
  "evil people"? Do you really think that or are you trying to put words in my mouth? I'm not arguing for or against any type of project. Even those "mostly due to other reasons" include Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications; a FOSS project for nudist organizations may include pictures of naked people and be developed at someone's work even within EEOC guidelines. What I am arguing against are the ideas that, when talking about "WTF is Wrong with Open Source Communities": 1) "self-selection" is all that meaningful, esp. as the piece mentions issues with that concept, and 2) lack of discrimination of patch acceptance due to submitter's protected group membership status is the primary standard.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    You can look at the pipeline of programmers and you will see a demographic pretty similar to open source. The usual story here is that this is also due to discrimination, which isn't based on evidence and should be dismissed without further comment. I do think there are factors, large ones even, that keep some women out of tech and they aren't sourced in biology. None of these are adressed by the suggestions in the article. I think the largest expression of sexism actually comes from people that suggest "solutions" like this. Using stereotypes now to make it clear in how I see positions like these. They wouldn't ever go into a nail saloon, complain about legal security or their behavior and cite it as the reason why they have difficulties hiring males. But it is with males that you insinuate discrimination. That sounds very well like prejudice to me and I also think the referenced studies came to prederterminded conclusion and are of little scientific value. Most open source projects don't contain nudes, but some actually do. I don't think this is a problem. To think this is the reason women are kept out of the industry is nonsensical to me. I am missing even the hint of truth here.