Slashdot Mirror
Drupal Developers Still Rebelling Against Drupal Leadership
New submitter cornholed writes: In an update to previous posts on Slashdot, prominent Drupal and PHP Developer Larry Garfield is still defending his reputation against allegations by Drupal leadership against sexual misconduct. As previously reported by a variety of news organizations, Larry was exiled from the Drupal project for adherence to the Gor sci-fi lifestyle.
In the latest round of allegations, Garfield was reportedly asked to resign because an autistic "woman who attended Drupal community events ... was allowed to contribute by him". While some have accused Dries Buytart and the Drupal Association of "Autism Shaming", the leader of the Drupal project claims "this person could be vulnerable and may have been subject to exploitation", hence raising the risk of legal damage to the Drupal project. Larry refutes these allegations, saying these claims are post-hoc and has shared police reports purporting his innocence.
There is still much debate in the Drupal community around why Larry was ejected from his leadership positions. While there's much speculation over Larry's ouster, there is one thing for certain: become a leader in the OSS community and a dossier on your public statements just might be made about you.
In the latest round of allegations, Garfield was reportedly asked to resign because an autistic "woman who attended Drupal community events ... was allowed to contribute by him". While some have accused Dries Buytart and the Drupal Association of "Autism Shaming", the leader of the Drupal project claims "this person could be vulnerable and may have been subject to exploitation", hence raising the risk of legal damage to the Drupal project. Larry refutes these allegations, saying these claims are post-hoc and has shared police reports purporting his innocence.
There is still much debate in the Drupal community around why Larry was ejected from his leadership positions. While there's much speculation over Larry's ouster, there is one thing for certain: become a leader in the OSS community and a dossier on your public statements just might be made about you.
I, for one, love that our personal sex lives are now subject to political correctness and mob rule, and that we should only partake of activities people who don't even know you decide are morally acceptable.
This is the same kind of reasoning that got people fired for being gay or having AIDS in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. But THIS TIME, it's for a Good Cause (TM), right? ... right?
I have to say it's rather amusing seeing this kind of blatant Puritanical moral self-righteousness coming from (nominally) social liberals. Not surprising, mind you: creating a tight-knit society that requires its members to adhere to strict, often arbitrary, moral and ethical guidelines is "How to Control Others" 101. The trick is, of course, ostracizing anyone who doesn't fall in line so that everyone whose still in the group sees the consequences of disobedience. Most people, after that, will never dare go against the authority for fear of losing friends/family/job, and even better, they'll watch for "deviant" behavior in their "friends" so they can turn on them and show what good, upstanding people they are. It's not new or clever (see: nearly every society in human history), but it works really, really well. Of course, when there isn't a central authority, the moral code usually becomes stricter and stricter as everyone seeks to show how pure and righteous they are until you end up with a moral code that's literally impossible to follow. Depending on your goal, that may actually be desirable: once everyone is a sinner, it becomes possible to wipe out any adversary no matter how pure they may actually be, but it's playing with fire, as you yourself can also become viewed as a sinner, if you're not careful (witness how in modern feminism white women are starting to become viewed as privileged, and you have to be a disabled trans black immigrant bald non-gender-conforming obese femtosexual to actually be considered oppressed, and therefore unable to be an evil privileged eraser of minorities).
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Why should we value your opinion more than that of three autism specialists, a social worker, and three police officers? -PCP
IMHO, I can judge the drupal board without the full facts of the relationship, because I believe it was wrong of them to react in any way to any allegation.
Maybe they have more convincing evidence of something being wrong that they have no published.
It's put up or shut up time. Why have they not done so? And I have a very high bar - because it has to be a genuine threat to the project. (I don't care if someone is a convicted murderer or any other crime; even THAT isn't good enough to kick someone off.)
Also, any evidence of actual harm being suffered by this woman that do have, they should have done the honourable thing and TURNED THAT F**KING OVER TO THE POLICE. Because social workers and police have already looked into this and found NOTHING. (See this commenter.)
Cops and social workers in Chicago investigated, and determined there was no abuse, that she was competent to consent and was consenting.
According to Garfield, she is autistic and shy. According to you, she is so mentally handicapped that she cannot consent. So you are the expert here? Are you a trained playlist who has reviewed her case? Or are you just talking out of your ass? Seems like you are autism-shaming.
I don't really understand BSDM but if everything is consensual it's not my damned business, or yours.