SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a stunning example of failure to understand the meaning of the word equality, Github's "social impact team" is now actively discriminating against people based on gender and skin color; white women in particular:
One insider criticized GitHub's "social impact team," which is in charge of figuring out how to use the product to tackle social issues, including diversity within the company itself. It's led by Nicole Sanchez, vice president of social impact, who joined GitHub in May after working as a diversity consultant.
While people inside the company approve of the goal to hire a more diverse workforce, some think the team is contributing to the internal cultural battle.
"They are trying to control culture, interviewing and firing. Scary times at the company without a seasoned leader. While their efforts are admirable it is very hard to even interview people who are 'white' which makes things challenging," this person said.
Sanchez is known for some strong views about diversity. She wrote an article for USA Today shortly before she joined GitHub titled, "More white women does not equal tech diversity."
At one diversity training talk held at a different company and geared toward people of color, she came on a bit stronger with a point that says, "Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women."
From a site policy standpoint, this really makes me want to argue for finding another host for our rehash repository, enormous pain in the ass though that would be.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Monday February 08 2016, @07:53PM
Also, I'm in favour of dumping GitHub and moving to another repo. You shouldn't reward racism with your business.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Post-Nihilist on Monday February 08 2016, @08:17PM
If they move they should avoid a using a site with a Contributor Covenant
So far this exclude:
GitLab : https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-of-conduct [gitlab.com]
CodePlex : https://www.codeplex.com/site/legal/conduct [codeplex.com]
Strangely that leave a choice between sourceforge and bitbucket
Be like us, be different, be a nihilist!!!
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday February 08 2016, @08:26PM
It does depend on the document. Nebulous documents that don't define specific, are completely open to interpretation, or try to control any behaviour outside the project are the problem. Something clear, concise, and limited could be tolerated.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday February 08 2016, @08:32PM
To me, GitLab's in unacceptable:
sexual language or imagery
I'm not sure what their problem with sex is, and while it shouldn't generally be involved in most of the projects, that's too open to interpretation, meaning it *will* be abused. How about "This function is completely screwed"? Does that get me banned? How about someone taking offence to creating "services"? There have already been ridiculous events like changing things from "master/slave" to other (less descriptive) names.
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 08 2016, @09:34PM
I'm currently working on a branch named jigglyboobs out of protest of CoC idiocy like that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2016, @10:23PM
Let me know when jigglyboobs becomes stable so I can stop checking it out ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:52AM
here have already been ridiculous events like changing things from "master/slave" to other (less descriptive) names.
Specifically, in Apple's Swift programming language's unit tests.
A fucking unit test no one ever looks at anyways, people.
(Score: 2) by Post-Nihilist on Monday February 08 2016, @08:41PM
I should have linked that term to the specific definiton of what I had in mind : http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/1/0/ [contributor-covenant.org]
Be like us, be different, be a nihilist!!!
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday February 08 2016, @10:01PM
Thanks, I didn't know there was an "official" "contributor covenant" and am a little surprised that it's as badly done as it is. I'll make the assumption that it has already been abused in the manner I described above.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2016, @10:27PM
+1 for bitbucket, it allows anonymous bug reports. That is important to me, because I am a coward.
t. anonymous coward
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:18AM
Another choice would be to just host the repository directly on SoylentNews. It's just a repository, after all. Bugreports could be handled through a local Bugzilla install, or even just on the Wiki (by giving each bug a separate Wiki page in a category "Bugs", with additional categories "Open", "Closed", "Not a Bug" etc.)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Post-Nihilist on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:26AM
The one click approach offered by those providers is tempting, but you are right, freedom should win over convenience.
Be like us, be different, be a nihilist!!!
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday February 08 2016, @09:47PM
I am glad I have already done so, but for different reasons. They appear to be drunk with power.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tibman on Monday February 08 2016, @11:44PM
I think they should keep git. They can just host the server themselves. https://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/824358-how-to-run-your-own-git-server [linux.com]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.