Slashdot Mirror
New GitHub Upgrades Respond To Recent Complaints (thenewstack.io)
destinyland writes: Last week GitHub announced the ability to create templates for Issues and Pull Requests, in an apparent response to an open letter signed by 600+ project maintainers. "This is the first of many improvements to Issues and Pull Requests that we're working on based on feedback from the community," "wrote Ben Bleikamp, Product Manager at GitHub. The original letter, hosted in a "Dear-Github" repository, noted that "If GitHub were open source itself, we would be implementing these things ourselves as a community..." But this week GitHub continued releasing new improvements, offering a new feature with to upload files directly into repositories without leaving their browser.
When a free service does something you don't want, you really have no recourse. So in the spirit of Open Source, fork it and start your own.
Wonder if they'll drop the social justice BS too
So stop using them.
If you don't want to host:
Or if you're a slashdotter that knows how to self host:
Still doesn't change your image of being a libtard SJW infested camp bent on hating non-minorities and anyone with white skin.
math science history we're fapping in misery
It might be difficult to charge for the enterprise platform - which is part of what funds the availability of GitHub in the first place.
I am an open source developer - I work on an open source platform - but I'm not a zealot. I *like* the principles of open source, but pragmatically it can't always provide a means to have supported software in all cases. Having an organisation that can keep the lights on at GitHub is more important than the whole of their code being open source - but maybe there is an opportunity to open up parts of it, like the issues.
You can say that people using a free service have no right to complain - but ultimately, you would think that the people paying for a hosted repository, or paying for the enterprise edition, might share similar concerns. So it is a little surprising that the issue tracking features have been as neglected.
Stop using GitHub.
They are racist idiots that need to go.
You can easily switch to GitLab, you can even import from gith*b straightforward.
... like almost all startup workers using OSX, they don't believe in the power of open source tools. Aside the fact they use HTML/CSS/JS/jQuery/Boostratp, Rails, Jekyll, MySQL-or-Postgres-or-any-FOSS-NoSQL and probably Linux in the server.
The parent comment shouldn't have been modded down.
The use of "social justice" as an online weapon of sorts is actually a very serious issue for many of who have considered using GitHub.
There's the whole Open Code of Conduct debacle. On that very page, under the "What companies or communities support or use the Open Code of Conduct?" section, it clearly states "GitHub".
I encourage everyone to read the code of conduct for themselves. It's just absurd how detailed and controlling that code of conduct actually is.
But it's even crazier when it comes to stuff like its "reverse -isms" clause, which basically makes discrimination against certain groups of people mandatory!
You can read some of the comments supporting the code of conduct. It's unbelievable how hypocritical, contradictory and just outright hateful so many of the Open Code of Conduct's supporters are.
Code of conducts like that, and the people who support them, aren't there to foster a friendly, open community. They're there to brutally control others, and to force their views and opinions on others through censorship and harassment, even while claiming that such behavior is wrong!
I want absolutely nothing to do with those people, their twisted ideas, their rampant hypocrisy, and their atrocious codes of conduct. That's why I can't bring myself to use GitHub.
We have adopted the Open Code of Conduct for the open source projects that we maintain, including Atom, Electron, Git LFS, and many others. The Open Code of Conduct does not apply to all activity on GitHub, and it does not alter GitHub's Terms of Service.
https://github.com/blog/2039-a...
Can you point to some specific issues with the Terms of Service?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What I'm confused about is the lack of diversity we so often see there. Let's take the Rust programming language project as an example. It's a heavy user of GitHub, and it's no secret that the Rust project is very supportive of social justice. It's really gung ho about codes of conduct and it even has a team of mods. But when we look at Rust's contributors we see that they are nearly all young white males. So despite supposedly being one of the most welcoming communities that most encourages diversity, why do we see a near total lack of diversity? Why I have I seen so much more diversity in every other programming language or computing community I've ever dealt with over the past several decades, where they weren't at all obsessed with social justice and diversity?
You're putting words in their mouth. They were upset that Github would endorse prejudice against people based on an accident of birth they have no control over. They never claimed that GitHub was enforcing that on the entire site, nor is that the real concern here. The concern is that some people are making some prejudice based on skin color acceptable or even mandatory. People who do such things are scum, regardless of how much melanin is in their skin. People who try to turn other people against each other based on nonsense like skin color are also scum.
It's hard to make item #1 from the GitHub employee doing diversity training at another company anything but an ugly prejudice. There's no reason that anyone should be excluded from leadership or anything based on their race and in fighting the specter of racism, I see people behaving no differently from the people they hate.
http://i.imgur.com/7YaVYUx.jpg
You must be intolerance of intolerance in order to be tolerant. Well, that's how it was explained to me when I interviewed there. Of course since I'm a white male, the first person I talked to was the last, and he didn't even try to do an interview. He just ranted about "you people" for an hour. I didn't leave because I thought the next person would be more rational, but there wasn't a next person.
They've gotten more efficient lately. When I did a phone screening the third week of January, they came right out and asked me my race, age and marital status. Of course I didn't get an interview. I even got called unconscientious several times.
The weird thing was that they kept saying their office is in "Soma." When I asked where that is, the woman got angry and started screaming. I've lived in San Mateo for a decade, but I hadn't heard that term before. It is what a few people call the area south of Market Street. I've always heard it referred to by its full name. I don't understand why the angry woman I was talking to got so angry about that.
I complained to the CA DoL when they did that to me, but I never heard back. Apparently CA doesn't have a problem with that sort of racism.
Even if the Open Code of Conduct isn't currently being used across the entire site or service, it is clearly supported by GitHub.
How can I be sure that the ToS won't be changed in the future to force the use of the Open Code of Conduct?
A huge problem with inconsistent, contradictory and vengeful codes of conduct like the Open Code of Conduct is the uncertainty they cause.
I can't be sure that my projects wouldn't be deleted just because me, or perhaps even somebody totally unrelated to my project, happens to accidentally violate the overly-strict and outright asinine Open Code of Conduct in some obscure way.
I can't be sure that my account wouldn't be banned under similar circumstances.
I sure as heck won't waste my resources using any service if I may get the boot at any time, just because some hipster/Millennial somewhere got "offended", especially if there's no oversight or any sort of a legitimate judicial or appeal process!
Regardless of who it is, any person or any organization supporting the Open Code of Conduct immediately throws up red flags for me. In such cases I have to proceed with the utmost of caution, which will likely involve never ever using any services provided by such parties. I can't put myself at risk in such a situation.
They were upset that Github would endorse prejudice against people based on an accident of birth they have no control over.
Everything you linked to, including the Open Code of Conduct, suggests that they are very strongly against that. Can you cite something specific? A specific sentence, rather than a longer text where it isn't clear what you think is prejudiced.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Clearly, there is a market for distributed version control for those that favor social injustice.
Whoa. This has me seriously reconsidering hosting my projects on Github. Someone needs to bring along a hidden recording device when they go for a Github interview.
AmiMoJo, you forgot to log in when you posted that comment. And why did you reply to yourself?
I would love to believe that, but then I don't know why their employees are giving diversity training that says that white people must be excluded from leadership roles in advancing diversity. The OP already identified a problematic clause, but just to help you find it, they're talking about this:
https://github.com/todogroup/opencodeofconduct/blob/gh-pages/index.md
This goes hand-in-hand with the idea that it's simply okay (or even fair!) to act in a prejudiced way against certain groups of people, rather than requiring the same respectful conduct of everyone. They've done nothing whatsoever to dispel that notion that it's simply okay when some people express some ugly racial prejudices, when it really shouldn't be socially acceptable for anyone to do so and this gets excused by saying that it's not as bad as Jim Crow laws or slavery, or selling the story that people alive today who share little if any connection beyond skin color somehow share collective guilt for things from long before they were born. This is called "privilege" and it somehow mysteriously operates almost entirely based on accidents of birth, such that a poor white person who lived in as a minority in an area where they suffer prejudice due to that can somehow still considered privileged merely due to skin coloration.
My guess is that the poster is a white woman. After decades of working for equality now they're a little hurt that they're no longer welcome.
It's neat how you use the aversion to ugly racial prejudice to excuse different ugly racial prejudices because oh well, they're not as bad. With that logic, we can excuse nearly any behavior whatsoever, simply by pointing out that someone else did something worse!
Naturally, anyone who disagrees clearly has no rationality on the subject and is just stifled by the weight of social opprobrium, being on the wrong side of history. Anyone who has ever studied the progress of history knows that there are clearly marked "forwards" and "backwards" positions and that nobody ever disagrees on what they are or uses them as part of a bandwagon appeal.
I think the row is about the Open Code of Conduct that GitHub claims to support, not its terms of service.
The Open Code of Conduct, for the most part, is a reasonable document. If I had a project I cared to implement it for, I would implement v1.0 sans this excerpt (not fixing the UTF for /.):
Our open source community prioritizes marginalized peopleâ(TM)s safety over privileged peopleâ(TM)s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding:
- âReverseâ(TM) -isms, including âreverse racism,â(TM) âreverse sexism,â(TM) and âcisphobiaâ(TM)
- Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as âoeleave me alone,â âoego away,â or âoeIâ(TM)m not discussing this with youâ
- Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
- Communicating in a âtoneâ(TM) you donâ(TM)t find congenial
- Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
That part of the document makes no sense to me and seems to throw the rest of the document out the window. This is little different from the hostile environment I encountered at Grand Valley State University in Michigan, USA around the turn of the century.
The first point is the bombshell. Sexism and racism are not allowed except for the sexism and racism that are allowed. The second and fourth points are acceptable; not everybody is a good communicator (not saying I am). The fifth point I'm ambivalent about. The third point is the detonator cap because it shuts down dialog; combined with the first point, we have a real can of worms.
If I have a disagreement with a womyn-born-womyn who is sending me hateful messages, am I allowed to pull out my trans status so that I can make a complaint that will be heard? Who determines whether I'm eligible to be part of either/both the female demographic or the transgender demographic? What if I get shouted down for having male privilege? Will my trans status protect me from that or does it count as protected reverse sexism? Nobody knows.
This is the danger of statements like the quoted excerpt. Somebody wrote, "All people are equal." Then the social justice crowd came around and scribbled beneath, "Except some people are more equal than others."
I really think the social justice crowd does not know what it is actually like to face systematic, institutional discrimination. I do. It's not nice. I have no intention to ever again allow myself to be subjected to institutional discrimination again. I am an individual. I am not accountable for the actions of others. My individuality will either be recognized, or I will go elsewhere.
The social justice crowd seems hell bent on holding the wrong people accountable for the career choices of womyn-born-womyn and for the sexual harassment that gaslighting asshole managers pour on women. Yes, it bothers the hell out of me when womyn-born-womyn $x holds me accountable for womyn-born-womyn $y's decision that being a mother and a wife is more important to her than pursuing a career. It bothers the hell out of me when womyn-born-womyn $z uses sexist language (a plumber is always a he, a doctor is always a he, a nurse is always a she, etc) and it bothers the hell out of me even more when $x holds me accountable for $z's internalized misogyny.
In that scenario, all that $x has accomplished is convincing me that having a tech career is just too toxic. S/he hasn't created a single womyn-born-womyn programmer. Since I can never be certain who's a TERF and who isn't and when I'm more equal due to being trans or less equal due to assignment to the male gender at birth, I'll just leave tech. Nobody cares about the gender situation of somebody who's flipping burgers and whether or not they might secretly have male privilege.
There needs to be dialog about these things. Shutting down dialog is the first sign of a hostile environment.
(That's a 50 DKP minus if you respond to me again as though I'm a man who regularly sexually abuses women.)
So you look at someone who appears to be white and male and based only on gender and race you ASSUME that they must also be rich and personally guilty of some *-ism or another?
If you somehow have proven to you that they are wealth impaired you presume them to be ignorant?
I note that you seem to have no problem using the pejorative "redneck".
What Github really needs is a way to report problematic users. When it's clear that a user of Github is a white cis male, we should be able to report them to the Github Trust and Safety Council who will ban them for violating the CoC (it's illegal to be a white cis male, shitlord).
Even if reverse racism were remotely equivalent to racism, which it is, because it is racism, plain and simple.
It's incredibly hypocritical to think any grouping of people is without fault. Racism is racism, and it should be treated as such no matter which grouping of people is attacking which grouping.
An allegation of reverse racism is an allegation of racism, just different to the perceived-most-common-form and thus should be treated exactly the same as any other allegation of racism. (And like any other allegation, an individual allegation may or may not be true, no matter if it is 'reverse' or not.)
Github will eventually turn into Mozilla. When a tech company stops hiring people with merit and only hires people who fit into the narrow views of the bigoted hate cult known as Social Justice, their products start to suffer.
Okay, I think the issue is that there is some jargon you have misunderstood. The use of jargon is a bit of an issue with the text you quoted.
Reverse-isms refers to things like people complaining that groups set up to help trans people are not willing to help cis people. Most people accept that offering help to underprivileged groups is not discriminatory towards others.
As for the point about not explaining social justice concepts, that's there to stop sealioning. Github and projects that adopt the code are not discussion forums for these issues, you can discuss them elsewhere like on the code's project page.
In the example you give, you don't need to bring up your own status. That would be ridiculous. It's harassment, you just report it as such. No-where does it say that some people are allowed to harass.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
AmiMoJo is one of Slashdot's best social justice whiner.
Remember this is anonymous persons making claims on the Internet - take it with some salt.
However I agree if this is true people should record their interviews and post them. And then post the interview and not a select part of it after making someone angry etc.!
Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification. I had read the jargon and interpreted it as a license to harass since that's been what I've encountered for the most part from people claiming to be "feminists."
If what you're saying is true, I would be able to support the Open Code of Conduct with the provision that it should be more clear that it is not facilitating the kind of revenge discrimination (including threats of violence and death wishes) that many cisgendered women here in bizarro world feel is necessary. If somebody were to attempt to hold me personally accountable for the lack of cisgendered women in tech on GitHub, especially if they were making threats, I would hope such a code of conduct would have my back.
I feel I'm not the only person who's been on the receiving end of revenge discrimination. It's important for the social justice movement to recognize that it does happen if it wants these codes of conduct to stand apart from extremist feminist policies.
"Coraline Ada Ehmke
â@CoralineAda
I'm thrilled to announce that I will be joining the team at @github next month to work on community management and anti-harassment tools.
"
So that's a no then.
"Community management"? What the fuck? Any community that's "managed" is not a community!
I would hope such a code of conduct would have my back.
It doesn't. There's no such thing as "reverse-isms" in their world, and since their definition of racism is "power+privlidge" you're fucked.
Om, nomnomnom...
*sigh*
reverse racism == racism
reverse sexism == sexism
How does it feel to be just as bigoted as the people you so despise?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I am aware of this position, thank you. I have been on its receiving end before, although not in a racist sense. I have no quarrel with different ethnic groups, and they have no quarrel with me. We support each other, because we're a community, and that's what community members do.
You forget: I'm a certified cis+het all-men shitlord! (Doubly so for liking learning sewing and baking in home ec much to the chagrin of cisgendered women!) I am merely trying to negotiate some other position because I have found evidence that AmiMoJo and BarbaraHudson are not full of shit.
I would not leave a career where I have 20+ years of experience for flipping burgers lightly.
I am aware of this position, thank you. I have been on its receiving end before, although not in a racist sense. I have no quarrel with different ethnic groups, and they have no quarrel with me. We support each other, because we're a community, and that's what community members do.
Oh, you're not missing much in the racist sense. I personally like the grifters out there that say "you're privileged" in one sentence, then say you're an oppressed minority in the next.
You forget: I'm a certified cis+het all-men shitlord!
Being white/asian(or japanese)-het I get the unique chance to see the triple standards first hand at times. And all the whining that gets thrown my way too.
I would not leave a career where I have 20+ years of experience for flipping burgers lightly.
Neither would I, but I'd move my repositories to something besides github(which I and the company I work for has long since done). Especially since they no longer believe in merit, and are hiring professional victims for their social outreach section. What I expect is github will survive as long as they don't stick their fingers into peoples repositories too much. Though their new CoC is doing so, and angering peoples. What the pushover even will be, I can't say, but if it's anything like what's happening at twitter...when it happens, it'll be spectacular.
Om, nomnomnom...
Beware that there are a lot of people claiming to be feminists, but who are really just trolls. There are a lot of them on Github lately. I've noticed some ACs have been pretending to be me by posting here as if I had forgotten to log in too.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The reverse-isms section does not make discrimination against certain groups mandatory. You'd probably be less outraged if you read it properly.
You would be "brutally controlled" by those terms only if you acted like a boorish fool amongst the other people. People acting professionally and sticking to the purpose of why they are there just want to get on with their work. People jumping in and calling everyone ridiculous epithets will be shunned, as has been human tradition for centuries.
So please don't have anything to do with these communities - they don't want you. If you can't see why things like this are necessary, you are probably part of the reason.
I think the bigot in that case was the person who stepped down for their bigotry being exposed.
On one hand, work and personal life are separate. On the other, said person could be considered a prominent representative of an organization that aims to bring the Web to everyone. Supporting something that wants to act *against* some group clearly represents a glaring contradiction.
Unless considering gay people equal is Social Justice now.