"has banned FOO and its employees from ever contributing to BAR" -- a statement that should never be accepted in an project.
@amszmidt on the contrary; i'd be afraid to co-operate with a person who is so not aware that context matters that they made a blanket statement as the above.
@mawhrin I am fully aware of the context, where are you employed?
@amszmidt the only relevant answer is that it's not in a company owned and managed by fascists. you?
@mawhrin Sorry, but how can I know that? If association by guilt is a thing, why are you so unseen on stating where you are employed?
@mawhrin Seeing you are most probably German, should I bring up the card? German did quite some shitty things to Poland, should I blame you by association?
That seems unfair no? Which is sorta my point, just cause you work for some company does not mean you are a shitty individual.
People who say that if you work for A, then you should NEVER be allowed to contribute a project are far more harmful than A, since they actively try to hurt individuals who have no say.
@amszmidt because we both know it's irrelevant (fwiw, my employers are gobshites, but not fascists, i'm not trying to influence a free software project, and my employer is not in the process of sabotaging governance of said project).
you're employing a standard rhetorical trick to make my position look bad, which again brings us to the fact that you pretend that context isn't important, and i think you're willingly obtuse.
my position is, really, that you should not co-operate with fascists, even if they're bearing monetary gifts.
it's that fucking simple.
@mawhrin Ok, *plonk* little fascist.
@amszmidt There is no perfect review process. Everyone's time is limited and there is always a degree of trust going into code review. If that trust has been breached, nobody is entitled to contributing to the project.
I'm thinking e.g. of the time when Linux banned a uni from contributing, as their security researchers had been actively trying to sneak in backdoors to prove a point about the review process. It was a valid point, but it was still fair to ban them.
If FOO represents a reputational risk to the project, or if they are bad actors that try to bend community principles and get on everyone's nerves, or contributions from them are in some other way detrimental to the project and its contributors, of course there must be a limit to how long the project is willing to spend effort to accomodate them. A blanket ban may save everyone's time and peace.