Comment by ipaddr
4 years ago
"We will not use or promote any software artifacts that are maintained by Mr. Pretty"
This part seems over the top. You go down this road and you end up in some foss hell. Later you find out someone who abused someone checked in code in linux. You can't use windows or a mac because of jobs and gates and you are back on a c64 until you realize what a bad person Jack was and you end up on OS/2.
I guess those who signed want to use an unmaintained version?
I get that people want to do something. Maybe conferences are not the best avenue for the community to meet safely. Providing gender safe housing would go a long way to having a more successful conference if successful means less rapes.
Edit: Would you characterize that part as "a bit like a public lynching"? Because I definitely wouldn't, even if I disagreed with it or felt it was too much.
---
I think you are very uncharitably reading that comment. There's a difference between, "This person checked some code into a repo" and "this person is the maintainer of a project".
And I think that it's reasonable for people to hold the stance of, "I don't want to run this person's code because I believe they are a serial abuser" and to clearly state why. If other repos see that, maybe they decide to take on that stance, maybe they don't.
They encourage others to consider doing the same, but the don't demand them.
If you are not going to fork and maintain the repos yourself encoraging others not to use open source is a weird group control method that doesn't feel right. Remember the code is open and apolitical.
Even thought I disagree with the group who signed the document I will still use whatever they maintain if it makes sense for my project.
Sure, we all make choices and have our own values. We all prioritize differently. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to ask you not to use a library, and it's not unreasonable for you to politely decline their request.