Why on earth would you decline this PR? Like the person who submitted it did all the work? I can see saying “fixing the pronouns in the docs isn’t a high priority” but it’s silly when the work is already done. Doubly so because, if the submitter had been coy and snuck the pronoun change in with another submission, no one would have declined it.
Because they don’t want to get involved in political drama, except people seem to be forcing their way in and actively trying to “cancel” the project over it now. I’ve seen this happen many times in recent years, “silence is violence” is their MO. I’m always sad when I see people have nothing better to do than sabotage a volunteer project that never did anything wrong.
Just like with NixOS, they can’t seem to figure out “just stick to the code” and leave all this other nonsense out of it.
The submitter was respectful and trying to help. They used their own time to make a change at no cost to the project. There was no downside to accepting the PR.
The BDFL rejecting the PR and calling it political is the cause of the drama. That’s entirely self inflicted.
What would you prefer it had been called? It’s their project and they can do whatever they want with it. I see no reason to get all bent out of shape about it. Not everyone has to agree, and the important part to realize is that that’s ok.
It’s their project and they can do whatever they want with it.
This is a common mistake. According to the documentation of the project only he/him people can contribute, not they/them.
To the reply,
I’d hoped the tongue in cheek nature of the comment was clear. Obviously I don’t believe only men are allowed to contribute to the project as some matter of policy, but I couldn’t help but make the jab at them for refusing the PR to try to be the smallest bit more inclusive as well as fix the grammar.
Open source project collaboration should revolve around technical merits only.
No. I don’t know where the line should be specifically and I don’t think it’s worth discussing, but in general I don’t see a problem with being hesitant to work with bigots, for example.
I disagree, and I think believing that’s what they actually meant is disingenuous and inflammatory. You’re suggesting they even care who contributes. Without asking Andreas, we have no idea why that word was chosen or if it was even intentional. And mote importantly it shouldn’t matter. Open source project collaboration should revolve around technical merits only.
Why on earth would you decline this PR? Like the person who submitted it did all the work? I can see saying “fixing the pronouns in the docs isn’t a high priority” but it’s silly when the work is already done. Doubly so because, if the submitter had been coy and snuck the pronoun change in with another submission, no one would have declined it.
Because they don’t want to get involved in political drama, except people seem to be forcing their way in and actively trying to “cancel” the project over it now. I’ve seen this happen many times in recent years, “silence is violence” is their MO. I’m always sad when I see people have nothing better to do than sabotage a volunteer project that never did anything wrong.
Just like with NixOS, they can’t seem to figure out “just stick to the code” and leave all this other nonsense out of it.
The submitter was respectful and trying to help. They used their own time to make a change at no cost to the project. There was no downside to accepting the PR.
The BDFL rejecting the PR and calling it political is the cause of the drama. That’s entirely self inflicted.
What would you prefer it had been called? It’s their project and they can do whatever they want with it. I see no reason to get all bent out of shape about it. Not everyone has to agree, and the important part to realize is that that’s ok.
This is a common mistake. According to the documentation of the project only he/him people can contribute, not they/them.
To the reply,
I’d hoped the tongue in cheek nature of the comment was clear. Obviously I don’t believe only men are allowed to contribute to the project as some matter of policy, but I couldn’t help but make the jab at them for refusing the PR to try to be the smallest bit more inclusive as well as fix the grammar.
No. I don’t know where the line should be specifically and I don’t think it’s worth discussing, but in general I don’t see a problem with being hesitant to work with bigots, for example.
I disagree, and I think believing that’s what they actually meant is disingenuous and inflammatory. You’re suggesting they even care who contributes. Without asking Andreas, we have no idea why that word was chosen or if it was even intentional. And mote importantly it shouldn’t matter. Open source project collaboration should revolve around technical merits only.
deleted by creator