Totally do not agree. Ethics and morals are tied to action. You cannot develop an AI tool without biases, you cannot develop GPL open source software without doing an act belonging to the left, you cannot ask for premium fees on your open core without doing something that belongs to the right. Just state your politic side, and do your work anyway for the benefit of every person, left or right.
Agree. I'll add some arguments. As another recent HN post pointed out there's good politics and BS politics.
For example engineering and business usually have orthogonal goals and different time frames. Working out a solution both can be happy with is good politics.
I've mentioned numerous examples on HN of BS politics so I won't waste your time there. But read Ishikawa's TQM the japanese way for the big picture.
Second a reflexive avoidance of politics is a bad sign. To deal with politics (and disagree) puts you one step closer to conflict with management. Now if management is malign or incompetent that that's a problem - but it's a problem that if not solved will sink the ship. Tech stuff is subservient to organizational maturity not the reverse.
Alternatively management may be fine but one may work from a cynical viewpoint and act like there's a problem where there is not. Don't do that. Bleeding cynicism is poison for cross functional coordination. A reflexive rejection of politics signifies fear, and absence of solutions which is not what we want to see in senior people.
And like the comment above says morals and ethics count. You can have a brain but if you don't have a backbone to push back ... you are not helping. You are part of the problem.
Good politics is people are good until proven otherwise, about pushing to organization to a higher local maximum even if its a touch uncomfortable making that jump.
The idea real valuable work can get done without politics is glib ignoring major potential problems. It rests on a nebulous definition of politics. It sounds nice in an interview (because it's a conveys a false sense of safety or risk) but it absolutely isn't help on the job. Finally, we can't know what a person really thinks ... until he/she is on the receiving end of a bad deal. Until then it's all talk without consequence.
I know this is going to ruffle some feathers, but what does it mean to leave politics at the door? When I write safety critical code, I am intentionally putting my ethical beliefs about minimizing harm to others first and foremost into the work. If one of my coworkers isn't doing that, we're going to have a chat even if their code meets every technical bar imaginable.
And when I talk to acquaintances working on military weapons, we inherently have philosophical differences even though we might agree on the merits of some particular code.
Everything is political. Trying to leave them at the door often becomes an excuse to put on blinders and avoid hard discussions.
The tweet is reasonable. People who object to something reasonable don’t make any sense. The political extremism needs to go away for society to be healthy.
And without fail when someone is calling for political neutrality, they are hard right and are looking for cover to not be called an asshole when they are acting like an asshole, because politically there is no longer any daylight between being on the right and being an exclusionary asshole.
There used to be more of a difference (or at least they were less likely to say the quiet part out loud), but no longer in the Trump era.
If any of this rubs you the wrong way, you're almost certainly a right wing asshole... but you'll probably want to pretend to be a moderate or centrist (the Bari Weiss maneuver). Save it, nobody wants to hear it.
I don't think the author is some mustache-twirling villain, but I do think the tweet is a case study in creating vague, subjective rules that will -- assuming a project lasts long enough and attracts enough contributors -- end up being enforced more or less by whim.
> - No politics in open-source (left or right)
I sympathize with the desire here, but if you're being honest about this it is intrinsically self-defeating, as the definition of what constitutes "politics" is, itself, political. (I do not know anything about the author and am not accusing him of anything here, but I'll note broadly that -- in my experience -- many people who claim to want to keep politics out of discussions are interested only in keeping politics they disagree with out of bounds.)
> - No COC, language policing, political banners, or any other divisive and inherently political symbols and tools of power
"No politics" is, itself, a COC. Beyond that, we have a mish-mash of vague and subjective restrictions; who, for example, decides what is or is not "language policing"?
> - No consideration for conduct in other communities; whatever they said on X or BlueSky is irrelevant
Really? If Alex and Bob are contributors on the project who get into an argument, and Alex goes on Twitter to call Bob a pedophile and dox him, you're saying you won't take that into consideration? What if Bob comes to the project leadership and says he's done contributing unless you ban Alex? Are you actually going to keep the scumbag who doxes other contributors over the person he doxed? I agree that we shouldn't be mining people's social media feeds looking for one off-color comment to justify banning them, but saying that any behavior in other communities is outside of consideration is shortsighted in the extreme.
> - Speech and conduct within the project should be professional and focused on the goals of the project
I thought we weren't language policing? I thought we weren't writing a COC? This just feels like a vague, subjective combination of both.
(Despite that - this is at least the one point I find most agreeable of the pack. I wonder why the author felt they needed anything else.)
> - The only valid reason to ban someone is because they are making MORE work for core contributors than their contributions justify (if Stalin wants to submit a good PR, merge it without fuss)
Sounds great on paper; what will you do if 10 prolific contributors who are responsible for, let's say, 50% of all contributions come to you and say "we're done with this project if you merge the Stalin PR"? Are you going to endanger the future of the project in the interests of staying apolitical?
> - The only valid reason to moderate is because someone can't respect the above, and in such a case, the moderator, moderation decision, and moderated content should be transparent to guard against abuse
This at least is broadly agreeable, but I have to note here that transparency does not intrinsically guard against abuse -- it makes it more visible, perhaps, but unless there is a process for responding to abuse and removing abusive moderators, visibility itself does precious little. Further, even if such processes do exist, the lack of a formal COC in favor of vaguely worded guidance creates enough ambiguity for abuse (eg selective enforcement) to run rampant.
My advice: if you're starting an open source project, start with the rule "don't be a dick," and enforce it yourself. In the extraordinarily unlikely event the project becomes large enough that you need a staff of moderators, bite the bullet and write a real COC, because otherwise you will spend huge amounts of time wrestling with uneven, biased enforcement and difficult, subjective appeals.
What a manifesto for allowing absolutely awful terrible people in to do awful harm and hurt to your community, your project.
It's almost entirely only very right-wing people with very mean views saying this stuff. It's itself political to allow people who are fascist in, people who actively wish to persecute & oppress others.
The paradox of tolerance does not allow this.
And it's open source! We aren't here to be neutral! Your presence here is a political statement unto itself, reflects against most other modes of economy of the world, stands in stark contrast! We ought to be vocal and proud about the open source ambition itself!
Bring yourself, and help others find their better supportive inclusive diverse selves, expand freedom and possibility.
Totally do not agree. Ethics and morals are tied to action. You cannot develop an AI tool without biases, you cannot develop GPL open source software without doing an act belonging to the left, you cannot ask for premium fees on your open core without doing something that belongs to the right. Just state your politic side, and do your work anyway for the benefit of every person, left or right.
Agree. I'll add some arguments. As another recent HN post pointed out there's good politics and BS politics. For example engineering and business usually have orthogonal goals and different time frames. Working out a solution both can be happy with is good politics.
I've mentioned numerous examples on HN of BS politics so I won't waste your time there. But read Ishikawa's TQM the japanese way for the big picture.
Second a reflexive avoidance of politics is a bad sign. To deal with politics (and disagree) puts you one step closer to conflict with management. Now if management is malign or incompetent that that's a problem - but it's a problem that if not solved will sink the ship. Tech stuff is subservient to organizational maturity not the reverse.
Alternatively management may be fine but one may work from a cynical viewpoint and act like there's a problem where there is not. Don't do that. Bleeding cynicism is poison for cross functional coordination. A reflexive rejection of politics signifies fear, and absence of solutions which is not what we want to see in senior people.
And like the comment above says morals and ethics count. You can have a brain but if you don't have a backbone to push back ... you are not helping. You are part of the problem.
Good politics is people are good until proven otherwise, about pushing to organization to a higher local maximum even if its a touch uncomfortable making that jump.
The idea real valuable work can get done without politics is glib ignoring major potential problems. It rests on a nebulous definition of politics. It sounds nice in an interview (because it's a conveys a false sense of safety or risk) but it absolutely isn't help on the job. Finally, we can't know what a person really thinks ... until he/she is on the receiving end of a bad deal. Until then it's all talk without consequence.
I know this is going to ruffle some feathers, but what does it mean to leave politics at the door? When I write safety critical code, I am intentionally putting my ethical beliefs about minimizing harm to others first and foremost into the work. If one of my coworkers isn't doing that, we're going to have a chat even if their code meets every technical bar imaginable.
And when I talk to acquaintances working on military weapons, we inherently have philosophical differences even though we might agree on the merits of some particular code.
Everything is political. Trying to leave them at the door often becomes an excuse to put on blinders and avoid hard discussions.
Great advice. Unfortunately, there seems to be a real desire out there to create little political fiefdoms around projects.
To extend. Treat everybody fairly and equally. Don’t be an asshole.
> Treat everybody fairly and equally.
Are you suggesting that this is apolitical?
Anyone who suggests otherwise needs to go back and relearn the basics of etiquette and politeness and treating fellow humans with common curtesy.
Yup. If you think treating everybody the same way is “political” then I think I know how you roll politically. Or at least ethically.
The tweet is reasonable. People who object to something reasonable don’t make any sense. The political extremism needs to go away for society to be healthy.
[dead]
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Everything is political.
And without fail when someone is calling for political neutrality, they are hard right and are looking for cover to not be called an asshole when they are acting like an asshole, because politically there is no longer any daylight between being on the right and being an exclusionary asshole.
There used to be more of a difference (or at least they were less likely to say the quiet part out loud), but no longer in the Trump era.
If any of this rubs you the wrong way, you're almost certainly a right wing asshole... but you'll probably want to pretend to be a moderate or centrist (the Bari Weiss maneuver). Save it, nobody wants to hear it.
I don't think the author is some mustache-twirling villain, but I do think the tweet is a case study in creating vague, subjective rules that will -- assuming a project lasts long enough and attracts enough contributors -- end up being enforced more or less by whim.
> - No politics in open-source (left or right)
I sympathize with the desire here, but if you're being honest about this it is intrinsically self-defeating, as the definition of what constitutes "politics" is, itself, political. (I do not know anything about the author and am not accusing him of anything here, but I'll note broadly that -- in my experience -- many people who claim to want to keep politics out of discussions are interested only in keeping politics they disagree with out of bounds.)
> - No COC, language policing, political banners, or any other divisive and inherently political symbols and tools of power
"No politics" is, itself, a COC. Beyond that, we have a mish-mash of vague and subjective restrictions; who, for example, decides what is or is not "language policing"?
> - No consideration for conduct in other communities; whatever they said on X or BlueSky is irrelevant
Really? If Alex and Bob are contributors on the project who get into an argument, and Alex goes on Twitter to call Bob a pedophile and dox him, you're saying you won't take that into consideration? What if Bob comes to the project leadership and says he's done contributing unless you ban Alex? Are you actually going to keep the scumbag who doxes other contributors over the person he doxed? I agree that we shouldn't be mining people's social media feeds looking for one off-color comment to justify banning them, but saying that any behavior in other communities is outside of consideration is shortsighted in the extreme.
> - Speech and conduct within the project should be professional and focused on the goals of the project
I thought we weren't language policing? I thought we weren't writing a COC? This just feels like a vague, subjective combination of both. (Despite that - this is at least the one point I find most agreeable of the pack. I wonder why the author felt they needed anything else.)
> - The only valid reason to ban someone is because they are making MORE work for core contributors than their contributions justify (if Stalin wants to submit a good PR, merge it without fuss)
Sounds great on paper; what will you do if 10 prolific contributors who are responsible for, let's say, 50% of all contributions come to you and say "we're done with this project if you merge the Stalin PR"? Are you going to endanger the future of the project in the interests of staying apolitical?
> - The only valid reason to moderate is because someone can't respect the above, and in such a case, the moderator, moderation decision, and moderated content should be transparent to guard against abuse
This at least is broadly agreeable, but I have to note here that transparency does not intrinsically guard against abuse -- it makes it more visible, perhaps, but unless there is a process for responding to abuse and removing abusive moderators, visibility itself does precious little. Further, even if such processes do exist, the lack of a formal COC in favor of vaguely worded guidance creates enough ambiguity for abuse (eg selective enforcement) to run rampant.
My advice: if you're starting an open source project, start with the rule "don't be a dick," and enforce it yourself. In the extraordinarily unlikely event the project becomes large enough that you need a staff of moderators, bite the bullet and write a real COC, because otherwise you will spend huge amounts of time wrestling with uneven, biased enforcement and difficult, subjective appeals.
What a manifesto for allowing absolutely awful terrible people in to do awful harm and hurt to your community, your project.
It's almost entirely only very right-wing people with very mean views saying this stuff. It's itself political to allow people who are fascist in, people who actively wish to persecute & oppress others.
The paradox of tolerance does not allow this.
And it's open source! We aren't here to be neutral! Your presence here is a political statement unto itself, reflects against most other modes of economy of the world, stands in stark contrast! We ought to be vocal and proud about the open source ambition itself!
Bring yourself, and help others find their better supportive inclusive diverse selves, expand freedom and possibility.