Enforced political advocacy in Google open source projects(github.com)
github.com
Enforced political advocacy in Google open source projects
https://github.com/Polymer/lit-html/issues/1386
20 comments
It doesn't really matter what you think about BLM or any other group/cause. It's very questionable to start applying ideological purity tests when you don't need them. Code works or it doesn't, you don't need to examine the soul of every would be contributor on every possible issue. In fact doing so is divisive and counterproductive to society as a whole.
What purity test is being applied here?
Where is it stated that one must prove any political affiliation or support any ideology in order to use or maintain the software? I see only a single banner on the home page with donation links, but nothing in the license or code of conduct that mentions any requirement of political advocacy on the part of would be contributors, nor any testing of purity or examination of souls.
Where is it stated that one must prove any political affiliation or support any ideology in order to use or maintain the software? I see only a single banner on the home page with donation links, but nothing in the license or code of conduct that mentions any requirement of political advocacy on the part of would be contributors, nor any testing of purity or examination of souls.
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.
Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to say but I couldn't put it that well :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Politics being as divisive as it is I'd prefer it stay in the political arena. In America that stuff is pretty toxic right now. I'd rather not git pull that mess into other parts of my life.
"Enforced" — isn't that just phrasing in a file in a git repo, and it's editable by anyone who wants to edit anything in their clones?
I think I chose the word "enforced" because of the Googler's reply and immediate closing of the issue without any discussion.
If this had been any other topic, they would have collected community feedback.
On this one though, it was made very clear that no discussion or change would be considered, so that makes it feel "enforced" to me.
If this had been any other topic, they would have collected community feedback.
On this one though, it was made very clear that no discussion or change would be considered, so that makes it feel "enforced" to me.
If you disagree with the assertion that Black lives matter, and the existence of that assertion bothers you so much, there are other projects that you can choose from.
You sorta proved the point inadvertently. Sure, if you don't support equal rights you are a bit of an ass hole, but BLM and other organizations can and should be legitimately criticized. If they can't be then they are in danger of corruption without those checks and balances. Exactly 0% of that is in a technical project's wheel house.
Perhaps people here are clever enough to distinguish between the phrase and the movement and not be caught out in accidentally supporting their actual core political principles.
The phrase isn't the problem, however the actual movement... [0]
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20200917194804/https://blacklive...
The phrase isn't the problem, however the actual movement... [0]
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20200917194804/https://blacklive...
Is something on that page problematic to you?
It's a fact isn't it? I don't know why BLM removed it. Maybe you know something that I don't about why BLM exists or why they removed it?
It looks like the content on that page was just moved to other pages under the about tab and the wording refined over time, but the message appears the same. What "actual core political principles" specifically do you believe BLM is trying to hide?
> It looks like the content on that page was just moved to other pages under the about tab and the wording refined over time, but the message appears the same.
The truth goes more like 'removal' than 'moved to other pages under the about tab'.
The "About" page you mentioned was almost left unedited (except for the renaming of the organisation) and no new additions, deletions or refinements were made to any of the sentences on the About page at the time BLM removed the page I found.
Or is the archives incorrect? [0] [1]
> What "actual core political principles" specifically do you believe BLM is trying to hide?
I think obfuscation is a fitting word here. Maybe you know why they 'removed' the page since it was misleading for you to say that it was just 'moved to other pages under the about tab' which given the archives it is clearly not the case.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20200916200404/https://blacklive...
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200917194804/https://blacklive...
The truth goes more like 'removal' than 'moved to other pages under the about tab'.
The "About" page you mentioned was almost left unedited (except for the renaming of the organisation) and no new additions, deletions or refinements were made to any of the sentences on the About page at the time BLM removed the page I found.
Or is the archives incorrect? [0] [1]
> What "actual core political principles" specifically do you believe BLM is trying to hide?
I think obfuscation is a fitting word here. Maybe you know why they 'removed' the page since it was misleading for you to say that it was just 'moved to other pages under the about tab' which given the archives it is clearly not the case.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20200916200404/https://blacklive...
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200917194804/https://blacklive...
Why are you unwilling or unable to directly state the principles you believe BLM is trying to "obfuscate?"
Your attempt to talk around your point and cast vague aspersions is getting tedious. Get to it and maybe we can have a conversation.
Your attempt to talk around your point and cast vague aspersions is getting tedious. Get to it and maybe we can have a conversation.
I'm afraid I don't think you answered my question on why BLM removed that page. In fact it was misleading for you to suggest it was "just moved to other pages under the about tab and the wording refined over time". According to the archives, this is completely false.
The entire page I mentioned in my second comment was 'removed' and almost no edits to the About page were made after its removal. The page itself and the reasons for its removal is the 'obfuscation' by BLM. Who knows, perhaps you know?
We could have a conversation, but perhaps you need to answer the question and actually come with actual evidence rather than misleading suggestions.
The entire page I mentioned in my second comment was 'removed' and almost no edits to the About page were made after its removal. The page itself and the reasons for its removal is the 'obfuscation' by BLM. Who knows, perhaps you know?
We could have a conversation, but perhaps you need to answer the question and actually come with actual evidence rather than misleading suggestions.
The point of the issue (I created) was to avoid this specific thing.
We have enough fracturing in the open source community. I think it's a worthy goal to avoid political fracturing here as well.
We have enough fracturing in the open source community. I think it's a worthy goal to avoid political fracturing here as well.
Well said. More love, more code.