|
Top-level
@LaF0rge I largely concur with your opinion, except for this bit: “[…] passport, their employer or their place of residence” Ignoring the whole Linux clusterfuck for a moment, why do you feel like employer should be a protected category? My feelings: We must not discriminate against properties one can’t control. Usually who you work for is something you can control. If one works for a company I deem sus, why should I not extend that judgement to it’s employees that freely choose to associate? 5 comments
@ronya I don't really see how the employer matters *except* in cases where the maintained code is something that employer has instructed the developer to submit (like a device driver of a device made by said employer). Developers are not some kind of zombie/property/droid owned by their employer. I would find it an insult if I was reduced to that role/hat. Maybe it's different in today's corporate Linus world. When I grew up people were kernel hackers first, no matter who happened to employ them @LaF0rge In regard to the merits of their patches and this whole Linux compliance & complacency fuckup : Ack. However, your blog sounds like you find it morally problematic to break ties with people based on their choice of employer. Why is that? Why should $community not say: "Your day job stands for something incompatible with our communities values. Hence, you are not welcome here, even though you have merit." Is that really what you are saying, or am I misunderstanding that part? |
Gregory's Server
@ronya @LaF0rge ontop of that, wasn't employer the only reason those individuals have been excluded?