Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements
lore.kernel.org
lore.kernel.org
What is not acceptable is the lack of transparency - the reason for removing maintainers should be stated clearly and plainly, not hidden under weasely terms like "various compliance requirements" that communicate nothing.
Are the "compliance requirements" anti-Russian sanctions, or is it a new legal theory by Microsoft that it is illegal for anyone who has used Windows 11 to contribute to FOSS software, but we don't get to learn how the law is being applied, because the people that should be shedding light on it are instead hiding it.
In short, do we want the law to be public, or secret? Any time vague terms like "legal reasons" or "compliance requirements", are used, it becomes a little more secret.
- (177 points, 1 day ago, 245 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41919670
- (10 points, today, 1 comment) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41938281
Software is written by people, however, who have no such obligation. As Desmond Tutu said,
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality"
As for your analogy: You are describing legal and acceptable competition between diners, which is not comparable to the situation here, unless diner A initiated an unjustified, violent, irredentist war of genocidal conquest against diner B, for which diner A has been condemned by most countries in the world, and also diner A's leader is wanted for war crimes against children committed while prosecuting this war, and is evading arrest.
If that is the case, then yes, remaining neutral or choosing diner A, is indeed choosing the side of the oppressor, and such a choice would reasonably reflect poorly on you.
This formulation states that since every act will inevitably in some way favor one party, every single act is moral, which to me seems fanatical, absolutist, and frankly unlivable.
That's fine, and neutral in the quote by Desmond Tutu refers to both intention (being in favor of injustice) and effects (effectively supporting injustice, even if that is not your primary intent).
> Otherwise the word "neutral" no longer has any meaning
That's a bit self-centered, innit? 'If you don't agree with my personal definition of this term, the term has no meaning.'
> Indifference is not evil
Indifference/neutrality in situations of injustice can absolutely support the oppressor, which is the entire point of the quote. Indeed, someone with no empathy for those affected by their actions would be meeting at least 1 criterion of sociopathy.
> This formulation states that since every act will inevitably in some way favor one party, every single act is moral
You seem to be skipping over the "in situations of injustice" part of the quote. Most countries agree that russia's violent, irredentist war of genocidal conquest is an injustice perpetrated on Ukraine. The same cannot be said about 2 diners competing.
To be neutral and do nothing, is indeed siding with the oppressor.