6 ms·

At the same time, software should not be tied to politics. People should be able to hold different political views while taking part in software conferences.

Xeamek 3y ago
>software should not be tied to politics. Why not? I mean, software is a product like any other. I for example wouldn't like if a group like ISIS was using my software, especially if they were using it to actively help them in commiting their crimes. If I could prevent that from happening, why shouldn't I?
- lynx23 3y ago
  The DSFG is a nice counter-example to your claim. Either something is unconditionally free, or it simply isn't.
  - Xeamek 3y ago
    >either something is unconditionally free, or it simply isn't. Ok, it isn't. So what?
- DeathArrow 3y ago
  >Why not You have the right to hold you own political views, however you don't have the right to impose those on users of a particular software or participants in a software conference.
  - Xeamek 3y ago
    If that software is mine and I control who can use it? I absolutely do have the (practical) right to impose those values, yes.
  - viraptor 3y ago
    You sure do have the rights to do that. A more general you does anyway. You can't export software to certain countries, basically due to their political position. Multiple sanctions exist today. See also the licence giving the right to IBM to use the software for evil. https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38fe47076 https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38...
  - hobofan 3y ago
    A sponsor/steward of the conference like the PSF certainly can ask for their Code of Conduct to be enforced in exchange for sponsorship. If what is in the Code of Conduct does not suite you, go find a different sponsor.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      A sponsor/steward of the conference like the PSF certainly can ask for their Code of Conduct to be enforced and that already happened by allowing them to call it pycon, as doing so requires permission from the PSF trademark workgroup. and one of the conditions is having a code of conduct.
godzillabrennus 3y ago
That’s a naive statement. People die in large numbers because of horrible governments. Software conferences should be restricted because of politics.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  Political pluralism should be the default. When an "us vs them" mentality is embedded in every aspect of society, those are the conditions that lead to horrible governments arising. It becomes more about protecting/promoting the "us" and screwing over the "them" than running a functional fair government.
  - Xeamek 3y ago
    >Political pluralism should be the default. Agreed. But that doesn't mean that EVERY and ALL political view should be respected. You can have political pluralism in some restricted spectrum, but not accept things that are too extreeme. Not tolerating human rights abuse doesn't automatically lead to every aspect of life being overtaken by "us vs them" mentality. Claiming that it does is nothing more then a slippery slope fallacy
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
      Sure, if the DjangoCon Africa organizers had a history of human rights abuses, maybe that would be a reason to not fund them. But having a conference in Tanzania seems like a non-issue. Imagine Tommy Tuberville was on the PSF board, and he stonewalls PSF funding for any conference held in a place where abortion is legal. (According to Tommy, legal abortion is a gross human rights violation.) Do you think this is going to be an effective or compassionate form of pro-life advocacy?
      - Xeamek 3y ago
        I would call that stupid because I don't agree with that view, but yes, he would have a right to not sponsor countries that have legal abortion. So what?
gpderetta 3y ago
On the other hand, people should be able to go to conferences without risking life imprisonment. Politics should not overshadow the technical aim, but when you have three or more people, politics are inevitable.
- ttyprintk 3y ago
  Agreed. The organizers of this conference have the responsibility to describe, out loud, what their laws prescribe for which actions tolerated in the West. The organizers themselves are taking a political risk doing that.
rainonmoon 3y ago
Software is intrinsically tied to politics. It is made to solve problems the priorities of which are arranged by political and ideological frameworks. It or its supporting infrastructure is often funded by political entities. It's written by people whose identities and freedoms are defined by their political context. You can't separate it from politics except in the case where your degree of privilege allows you to ignore it.
- tbrake 3y ago
  The old "everything is politics if you really think about it" gambit, eh?
  - jdiff 3y ago
    It's foolishness to believe that politics has no place in daily life when there are people who will make others' entire existences political. It's not a "gambit" if it's patently true.
  - Planktonne 3y ago
    Not really a gambit so much as a fact.
    - dijit 3y ago
      I can pick my nose and it's not a political statement. I just needed to pick my nose. I can make a cli tool to deploy something faster and with the boilerplate logging/monitoring. What political stance am I taking? Do you think I intentionally made one? Or is this the same as "silence is violence"- by NOT making a statement that I am making a statement? Honestly, it's exhausting. I just want to help where I can personally and have fun, it's not deeper than that.
      - richie_adler 3y ago
        > I just want to help where I can personally and have fun, it's not deeper than that. Your position seems to be "I don't want to be bother ever by the problems of others if they don't affect me and my close ones directly". And that's a political position. A RIGHT WING political position.
pydry 3y ago
>At the same time, software should not be tied to politics. This sounds like an apolitical position, but it is a highly political position. Software is and always will be tied to politics whether we like it or not. It can't be insulated from it.
bookmark1231 3y ago
Whether or not people should be imprisoned (or killed) for personal expression is a very different question than whether a country should have have a central bank, democratic representation or a strong welfare system. It’s a moral question, not a political one, and I think it’s fair to be uncompromising about certain moral questions.
danShumway 3y ago
Whether or not software should be political is kind of beside the point. Even if we assume that software should be apolitical, there's still the issue that it is the Tanzanian government that is imposing political restrictions on participation. The entire debate here is about the fact that the government of Tanzania will not not allow a software conference to exist in Tanzania that is divorced from politics. If you truly, really want to be apolitical, then it shouldn't matter whether an attendee is openly gay or not. If it's really separated from the politics, then gay or anti-gay, trans or anti-trans, they should at the very least be able to participate while feeling like they're physically safe. And if they're not safe, then it's not apolitical. If someone feels unsafe participating because of their identity, that is a political conference, it is a conference where people are being excluded on account of someone else's political views. The PSF is not asking for everyone in Tanzania to say that they're fine with LGBTQ rights. But regardless of someone's political views about LGBTQ rights, LGBTQ people should still be able to participate safely in the conference. We're not talking about whether people can take part in a software conference while holding anti-LGBTQ views. We're asking whether or not it's reasonable for the political environment to threaten LGBTQ people and through that threatening environment prevent them from participating. An apolitical conference is one where it's safe to give a tech talk regardless of whether or not you're openly trans, because regardless of whether or not people are offended about your gender, ultimately the technical content of your talk is the part that matters. A political conference is one where in addition to the tech, you also have to think about how you look and what clues you're letting slip and whether or not you're doing a good enough job pretending that your partner isn't your partner and whether you're using the bathroom people expect -- all just so you can avoid legal consequences from the government.
OkayPhysicist 3y ago
There's "holds different political views" and then there's "believe you and your kind should be exterminated". Whether or not LGBTQ+ people should be arrested and potentially executed is not at all comparable to holding disagreements about tax policy, or whether bridges should be funded over tunnels. There is no spectrum of possible resolutions, and there is no moral ambiguity. No one should associate themselves with evil, and homophobia is evil.

Xeamek 3y ago

>software should not be tied to politics. Why not? I mean, software is a product like any other. I for example wouldn't like if a group like ISIS was using my software, especially if they were using it to actively help them in commiting their crimes. If I could prevent that from happening, why shouldn't I?

lynx23 3y ago
The DSFG is a nice counter-example to your claim. Either something is unconditionally free, or it simply isn't.
- Xeamek 3y ago
  >either something is unconditionally free, or it simply isn't. Ok, it isn't. So what?
DeathArrow 3y ago
>Why not You have the right to hold you own political views, however you don't have the right to impose those on users of a particular software or participants in a software conference.
- Xeamek 3y ago
  If that software is mine and I control who can use it? I absolutely do have the (practical) right to impose those values, yes.
- viraptor 3y ago
  You sure do have the rights to do that. A more general you does anyway. You can't export software to certain countries, basically due to their political position. Multiple sanctions exist today. See also the licence giving the right to IBM to use the software for evil. https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38fe47076 https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38...
- hobofan 3y ago
  A sponsor/steward of the conference like the PSF certainly can ask for their Code of Conduct to be enforced in exchange for sponsorship. If what is in the Code of Conduct does not suite you, go find a different sponsor.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    A sponsor/steward of the conference like the PSF certainly can ask for their Code of Conduct to be enforced and that already happened by allowing them to call it pycon, as doing so requires permission from the PSF trademark workgroup. and one of the conditions is having a code of conduct.

godzillabrennus 3y ago

That’s a naive statement. People die in large numbers because of horrible governments. Software conferences should be restricted because of politics.

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
Political pluralism should be the default. When an "us vs them" mentality is embedded in every aspect of society, those are the conditions that lead to horrible governments arising. It becomes more about protecting/promoting the "us" and screwing over the "them" than running a functional fair government.
- Xeamek 3y ago
  >Political pluralism should be the default. Agreed. But that doesn't mean that EVERY and ALL political view should be respected. You can have political pluralism in some restricted spectrum, but not accept things that are too extreeme. Not tolerating human rights abuse doesn't automatically lead to every aspect of life being overtaken by "us vs them" mentality. Claiming that it does is nothing more then a slippery slope fallacy
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
    Sure, if the DjangoCon Africa organizers had a history of human rights abuses, maybe that would be a reason to not fund them. But having a conference in Tanzania seems like a non-issue. Imagine Tommy Tuberville was on the PSF board, and he stonewalls PSF funding for any conference held in a place where abortion is legal. (According to Tommy, legal abortion is a gross human rights violation.) Do you think this is going to be an effective or compassionate form of pro-life advocacy?
    - Xeamek 3y ago
      I would call that stupid because I don't agree with that view, but yes, he would have a right to not sponsor countries that have legal abortion. So what?

gpderetta 3y ago

On the other hand, people should be able to go to conferences without risking life imprisonment. Politics should not overshadow the technical aim, but when you have three or more people, politics are inevitable.

ttyprintk 3y ago
Agreed. The organizers of this conference have the responsibility to describe, out loud, what their laws prescribe for which actions tolerated in the West. The organizers themselves are taking a political risk doing that.

rainonmoon 3y ago

Software is intrinsically tied to politics. It is made to solve problems the priorities of which are arranged by political and ideological frameworks. It or its supporting infrastructure is often funded by political entities. It's written by people whose identities and freedoms are defined by their political context. You can't separate it from politics except in the case where your degree of privilege allows you to ignore it.

tbrake 3y ago
The old "everything is politics if you really think about it" gambit, eh?
- jdiff 3y ago
  It's foolishness to believe that politics has no place in daily life when there are people who will make others' entire existences political. It's not a "gambit" if it's patently true.
- Planktonne 3y ago
  Not really a gambit so much as a fact.
  - dijit 3y ago
    I can pick my nose and it's not a political statement. I just needed to pick my nose. I can make a cli tool to deploy something faster and with the boilerplate logging/monitoring. What political stance am I taking? Do you think I intentionally made one? Or is this the same as "silence is violence"- by NOT making a statement that I am making a statement? Honestly, it's exhausting. I just want to help where I can personally and have fun, it's not deeper than that.
    - richie_adler 3y ago
      > I just want to help where I can personally and have fun, it's not deeper than that. Your position seems to be "I don't want to be bother ever by the problems of others if they don't affect me and my close ones directly". And that's a political position. A RIGHT WING political position.

pydry 3y ago

>At the same time, software should not be tied to politics. This sounds like an apolitical position, but it is a highly political position. Software is and always will be tied to politics whether we like it or not. It can't be insulated from it.

bookmark1231 3y ago

Whether or not people should be imprisoned (or killed) for personal expression is a very different question than whether a country should have have a central bank, democratic representation or a strong welfare system. It’s a moral question, not a political one, and I think it’s fair to be uncompromising about certain moral questions.

danShumway 3y ago

Whether or not software should be political is kind of beside the point. Even if we assume that software should be apolitical, there's still the issue that it is the Tanzanian government that is imposing political restrictions on participation. The entire debate here is about the fact that the government of Tanzania will not not allow a software conference to exist in Tanzania that is divorced from politics. If you truly, really want to be apolitical, then it shouldn't matter whether an attendee is openly gay or not. If it's really separated from the politics, then gay or anti-gay, trans or anti-trans, they should at the very least be able to participate while feeling like they're physically safe. And if they're not safe, then it's not apolitical. If someone feels unsafe participating because of their identity, that is a political conference, it is a conference where people are being excluded on account of someone else's political views. The PSF is not asking for everyone in Tanzania to say that they're fine with LGBTQ rights. But regardless of someone's political views about LGBTQ rights, LGBTQ people should still be able to participate safely in the conference. We're not talking about whether people can take part in a software conference while holding anti-LGBTQ views. We're asking whether or not it's reasonable for the political environment to threaten LGBTQ people and through that threatening environment prevent them from participating. An apolitical conference is one where it's safe to give a tech talk regardless of whether or not you're openly trans, because regardless of whether or not people are offended about your gender, ultimately the technical content of your talk is the part that matters. A political conference is one where in addition to the tech, you also have to think about how you look and what clues you're letting slip and whether or not you're doing a good enough job pretending that your partner isn't your partner and whether you're using the bathroom people expect -- all just so you can avoid legal consequences from the government.

OkayPhysicist 3y ago

There's "holds different political views" and then there's "believe you and your kind should be exterminated". Whether or not LGBTQ+ people should be arrested and potentially executed is not at all comparable to holding disagreements about tax policy, or whether bridges should be funded over tunnels. There is no spectrum of possible resolutions, and there is no moral ambiguity. No one should associate themselves with evil, and homophobia is evil.