I've mentioned numerous examples on HN of BS politics so I won't waste your time there. But read Ishikawa's TQM the japanese way for the big picture.
Second a reflexive avoidance of politics is a bad sign. To deal with politics (and disagree) puts you one step closer to conflict with management. Now if management is malign or incompetent that that's a problem - but it's a problem that if not solved will sink the ship. Tech stuff is subservient to organizational maturity not the reverse.
Alternatively management may be fine but one may work from a cynical viewpoint and act like there's a problem where there is not. Don't do that. Bleeding cynicism is poison for cross functional coordination. A reflexive rejection of politics signifies fear, and absence of solutions which is not what we want to see in senior people.
And like the comment above says morals and ethics count. You can have a brain but if you don't have a backbone to push back ... you are not helping. You are part of the problem.
Good politics is people are good until proven otherwise, about pushing to organization to a higher local maximum even if its a touch uncomfortable making that jump.
The idea real valuable work can get done without politics is glib ignoring major potential problems. It rests on a nebulous definition of politics. It sounds nice in an interview (because it's a conveys a false sense of safety or risk) but it absolutely isn't help on the job. Finally, we can't know what a person really thinks ... until he/she is on the receiving end of a bad deal. Until then it's all talk without consequence.
And when I talk to acquaintances working on military weapons, we inherently have philosophical differences even though we might agree on the merits of some particular code.
Everything is political. Trying to leave them at the door often becomes an excuse to put on blinders and avoid hard discussions.
Are you suggesting that this is apolitical?
See Russians as they were not caring about politics and suddenly one day they were handed a slip and sent to frontlines. Granted Kremlin quickly started throwing money at the problem and use volunteers instead, but those few months after September 2022 were a reminder why everyone should always care about politics.
It's almost entirely only very right-wing people with very mean views saying this stuff. It's itself political to allow people who are fascist in, people who actively wish to persecute & oppress others.
The paradox of tolerance does not allow this.
And it's open source! We aren't here to be neutral! Your presence here is a political statement unto itself, reflects against most other modes of economy of the world, stands in stark contrast! We ought to be vocal and proud about the open source ambition itself!
Bring yourself, and help others find their better supportive inclusive diverse selves, expand freedom and possibility.
> - No politics in open-source (left or right)
I sympathize with the desire here, but if you're being honest about this it is intrinsically self-defeating, as the definition of what constitutes "politics" is, itself, political. (I do not know anything about the author and am not accusing him of anything here, but I'll note broadly that -- in my experience -- many people who claim to want to keep politics out of discussions are interested only in keeping politics they disagree with out of bounds.)
> - No COC, language policing, political banners, or any other divisive and inherently political symbols and tools of power
"No politics" is, itself, a COC. Beyond that, we have a mish-mash of vague and subjective restrictions; who, for example, decides what is or is not "language policing"?
> - No consideration for conduct in other communities; whatever they said on X or BlueSky is irrelevant
Really? If Alex and Bob are contributors on the project who get into an argument, and Alex goes on Twitter to call Bob a pedophile and dox him, you're saying you won't take that into consideration? What if Bob comes to the project leadership and says he's done contributing unless you ban Alex? Are you actually going to keep the scumbag who doxes other contributors over the person he doxed? I agree that we shouldn't be mining people's social media feeds looking for one off-color comment to justify banning them, but saying that any behavior in other communities is outside of consideration is shortsighted in the extreme.
> - Speech and conduct within the project should be professional and focused on the goals of the project
I thought we weren't language policing? I thought we weren't writing a COC? This just feels like a vague, subjective combination of both. (Despite that - this is at least the one point I find most agreeable of the pack. I wonder why the author felt they needed anything else.)
> - The only valid reason to ban someone is because they are making MORE work for core contributors than their contributions justify (if Stalin wants to submit a good PR, merge it without fuss)
Sounds great on paper; what will you do if 10 prolific contributors who are responsible for, let's say, 50% of all contributions come to you and say "we're done with this project if you merge the Stalin PR"? Are you going to endanger the future of the project in the interests of staying apolitical?
> - The only valid reason to moderate is because someone can't respect the above, and in such a case, the moderator, moderation decision, and moderated content should be transparent to guard against abuse
This at least is broadly agreeable, but I have to note here that transparency does not intrinsically guard against abuse -- it makes it more visible, perhaps, but unless there is a process for responding to abuse and removing abusive moderators, visibility itself does precious little. Further, even if such processes do exist, the lack of a formal COC in favor of vaguely worded guidance creates enough ambiguity for abuse (eg selective enforcement) to run rampant.
My advice: if you're starting an open source project, start with the rule "don't be a dick," and enforce it yourself. In the extraordinarily unlikely event the project becomes large enough that you need a staff of moderators, bite the bullet and write a real COC, because otherwise you will spend huge amounts of time wrestling with uneven, biased enforcement and difficult, subjective appeals.
