@ronya I don't really see how the employer matters...

@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

Like 26 October at 10:10 | Open on chaos.social

3 comments

Ronja

@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?

26 October at 10:19 | Open on chaos.social

Ronja

@LaF0rge FWIW: I work at Google, so there are plenty of chaos communities that would be happy to use such reasoning against myself ^^\

26 October at 10:37 | Open on chaos.social

LaF0rge

@ronya I think a peoject/community could of course have such a policy / determination, yes. But then I didn't see any such decision-building or policy with some consensus before this incident. My apologies if I missed it. I also didn't see any reporting on adressing the affected developers.

26 October at 11:08 | Open on chaos.social