
Response to conversations about me - velmu
https://www.garfieldtech.com/blog/tmi-part-2
======
elevensies
I personally have no interest in PHP or BDSM but I think really everyone who
wants to participate in Open Source Software in 2017 should be paying
attention to this along with other instances where people have been
kicked/banned from projects alongside public accusations against them.
Especially if you have been participating in online communities for a while,
your conversations have probably been archived and are open to scrutiny based
moral standards that are constantly changing, both in terms of who is applying
them to the project, and changes in the views of each individual. And when I
say your conversations, I mean both conversations that you've held in public-
ish settings and also conversations that you believed to be private that could
be forwarded or screenshot without your knowledge or consent. Or conversations
where you believed you were pseudo-anonymous where your identity was later
reveled.

Also, given international participation of many projects, the moral
inquisitors may hold views that are significantly different than anyone you've
ever met or interacted with in a non-technical setting.

I think the TV show Black Mirror should be shown in high schools as an
educational video.

~~~
thesmallestcat
This is why I stopped helping/participating in ##javascript on Freenode, and I
don't think I'm alone. [Nicks of two enthusiastic mods redacted] made it clear
(in channel as well as in private /msg) that any perceived troublemaking, if
it could be distorted to break a CoC rule, would result in the user being
blacklisted at most major JavaScript events. Who would accept that career
risk? Having your name on such a list would be devastating. Increasingly,
small groups of SJW-types (sorry, I can't think of a better description right
now) are controlling mainstream open source communities.

It seems these days more and more like if you want to actively participate in
open source, you either have to fit a narrow definition of a Good Person, or
else be a cold oracle of code, producing nothing but fact.

------
protomyth
I'm a fairly conservative guy, but reading this I cannot help but think Dries
is the problem. So, Larry has a kink that is consensual that has a community
and is not against the law. I'm at a loss if he hasn't harmed anyone and done
anything in his speeches at the various Cons why this is a problem. Which
brings us to:

 _While I will not share the evidence that I believe would validate the
decision that I made for reasons of liability and confidentiality_

Is pretty much the new _" I don't have to justify my decision, it is right,
and you don't get to argue"_ phrasing. You get to kick them out, and everyone
gets to use their imagination about what further nastiness occurred. Also,
they cannot fight back effectively.

~~~
coreyp_1
Dries has always been a "benevolent dictator"
[http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/375567/dries_buytaer...](http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/375567/dries_buytaert_talks_drupal_leadership_open_source/).

I feel that your observation is correct, with one caveat: Several people kept
pushing on this against Larry. They, too, are the problem. Blackmail is NEVER
acceptable.

------
klibertp
The order of reading seems to be like this:

[https://www.garfieldtech.com/blog/tmi-
outing](https://www.garfieldtech.com/blog/tmi-outing)

[http://buytaert.net/living-our-values](http://buytaert.net/living-our-values)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/drupal/comments/60y9mq/larry_garfie...](https://www.reddit.com/r/drupal/comments/60y9mq/larry_garfield_on_harassment_in_the_drupal_project/)

[https://www.garfieldtech.com/blog/tmi-
part-2](https://www.garfieldtech.com/blog/tmi-part-2)

------
sgilly
I wonder how often this happens. Being into BDSM myself, even though I'm
fairly cautious (no face photos on Fetlife, etc.) I'd always like to think my
professional community would be relatively open-minded about this thing if it
came to someone wanting to blackmail me.

This piece has made me wonder whether I'm wrong.

~~~
thehardsphere
It's not right to blackmail somebody. But the reason he was blackmailed
probably had absolutely nothing to do with BDSM and everything to do with
something related to Drupal or some other area where he had a dispute with
someone else. BDSM was probably just a prejudice of convience, assuming the
story is exactly how it is presented.

So, if would be more concerned about not making people want to blackmail you,
than about the particulars of how accepting people will be od what you could
be blackmailed with.

~~~
watwut
"So, if would be more concerned about not making people want to blackmail you,
than about the particulars of how accepting people will be od what you could
be blackmailed with."

That might be career limiting if he is ambitious. If he is ambitious and has
competitors willing to hack ethics, then particulars on what happens when they
cease the info are relevant.

~~~
thehardsphere
The best defense against people "hacking ethics" is to act ethically yourself
always. And by that, I don't mean conforming to heteronormativity, I mean not
needlessly pissing people off as you climb the ladder. Even if you have to
piss someone off to get the job done, you should know that "ethics hackers"
could exist and adjust your work conduct accordingly.

~~~
klibertp
You posted several comments like this in this thread and I'm getting curious.

Basically, what you mean to say is that Larry Garfield is an asshole (I
apologize if I'm guessing your intentions wrong). While you claim to know him,
I don't, but I read a few comments from other people, who apparently regard
him "a model community member".

Could you share some details on why do you think he's an asshole, who almost
surely _did_ do something bad?

~~~
thehardsphere
> Basically, what you mean to say is that Larry Garfield is an asshole

I wouldn't disagree with this statement.

> Could you share some details...

Sure.

Larry was a very productive and highly valued contributor in the community in
which I knew him also. He was also simultaneously an ambitious jerk who sought
high status for himself, engaged in a lot of manipulative, bullying behavior
to keep that status once he attained it, and sought to change the customs of
our community to permanently enshrine himself in a highly privileged position.
This created a rather complex dynamic where members of our community either
thought that he was a "model community member" or an "asshole" depending on
what they happened to notice him doing.

Eventually there came a time where his positive contributions outweighed the
negative ones, and decisions were made to relieve him of certain
responsibilities. Not a secret star chamber thing like with the Drupal
project; it was really more of a "well, you haven't really done anything for
the past 5 years because all your time is spent on Drupal, so you should
really step aside now for someone else to do this work that we really need
done."

When that news was delivered to him, he engaged in this sort of behavior that
he's doing now; sharing publicly details of the decision in a misleading way,
in order to gain immediate public sympathy and hide the fact that he was asked
to leave his high-status position (not our whole community) because he wasn't
meeting the obligations that he committed himself to. He got away with this
for a little while because the people who dismissed him decided to let him
have a face-saving exit because of his valuable past contributions, but
eventually everyone heard the story through the gossip chain years later.

So, that's why I think he did do something bad which we don't know about; he's
exhibiting the same pattern of deliberately misleading behavior when he did
something not-even-bad. Either he's trying to flip Dries et al through public
pressure, or he's trying to save his career by painting himself as a victim
(he probably still is a victim, even if he's an asshole who did something bad;
blackmail is always wrong). He's made a bet that Dries et al are not going to
spill the beans, so he's taking control of the narrative for his own
advantage.

I will say one nice thing about Larry though: I have never heard any woman
ever complain that he acted inappropriately towards them in any way related to
their gender while he was in our community.

~~~
klibertp
Ok, that changes the picture somewhat. Thank you.

However, I still don't understand why Dries wrote that "promoting Gorean
philosophy" was the reason for the ban. He could have simply said that Larry
did something bad without getting into details _and_ without mentioning
unrelated things.

The problem is that - as I wrote in another comment - the reason as stated is
very weak. It looks like it's designed to be defeated by Larry and to give
Larry a way to retaliate. Even you say that:

> I have never heard any woman ever complain that he acted inappropriately
> towards them in any way related to their gender while he was in our
> community.

So really, saying that the reason for the ban is that Larry promoted "females
are subhuman" philosophy was bound to stir up some controversy and generate
some support for _Larry_.

I guess I understand less and less...

~~~
thehardsphere
Yeah, since my initial comments on this I understand less despite reading
more. I didn't actually know that Dries originally said it had to do with his
philosophy; it had already been edited to be more vague at that point. That's
why I started with a "well, he did something" attitude.

But the other thing to keep in mind, re:

> It looks like it's designed to be defeated by Larry and give Larry a way to
> retaliate

Remember that Larry was the first one to go public, so he's the one who got to
establish the narrative, not Dries. Larry decided to make this about what he
does in the bedroom, and that's now what everyone on the Internet is talking
about. Dries, for whatever reason, isn't saying what "the real reason is", so
he's left with no alternative but to respond to Larry's claims on Larry's
terms.

Dries really ought to just spill everything at this point, "liability" be
damned. The project has already been hurt because the assumption now is that
it's run by bigots. If it's actually run by bigots and bigotry was the reason
Larry got canned, it's not like admitting that is going to hurt them much
worse.

------
thesmallestcat
Hopefully this thread is not killed like the previous one.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13960859](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13960859)

------
klibertp
There's one aspect of all this I'd like to address. According to Dries, the
reason for banning Larry is this:

 _In the end, I fundamentally believe that all people are created equally.
This belief has shaped the values that the Drupal project has held since it 's
early days. I cannot in good faith support someone who actively promotes a
philosophy that is contrary to this. The Gorean philosophy promoted by Larry
is based on the principle that women are evolutionarily predisposed to serve
men and that the natural order is for men to dominate and lead._

This sounds horrible, but I think it's just a misunderstanding. I believe that
what Dries (and some commenters, like tptacek[1][2]) misses here is a very
fundamental fact: BDSM is just a game, and "Gor" is just a series of science-
fantasy novels.

In other words, even if Larry did say somewhere that "females are subhuman"
it's not enough to conclude that this is what he believes in, even less that
he would act on these beliefs. It may look pretty bad - whatever he said or
wrote[5], we don't know[3] - when taken out of context, but without solid
evidence to the contrary I assume the context here is BDSM. Saying things like
these is expected and normal within the bounds of the scene and in
conversations about it[6].

Again: default assumption when it comes to BDSM is that it's an act, a game
played between consenting adults. Dries seems to be convinced that there is
enough evidence[4] to say that this assumption does not apply here. As an
outsider, I find it hard to believe him without seeing the evidence myself. In
my experience, it's more often the case that the shocked observers don't know
(or don't want to know) the convention and interpret what they see out of
context.

To summarize: without further evidence and based on the knowledge of what BDSM
is about I think it's safer to assume that someone did take offense (contrary
to Dries claim[7]) to something he didn't fully understand, which resulted in
current situation.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13961655](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13961655)

[2] _Since the beliefs that we 're talking about could be broadly and probably
inaccurately but by how much I don't know described as "females are subhuman,"
it's the perspective of the Drupal members who did the ousting that those
beliefs matter very much to the project._

[3] _it is not for me to share any of the confidential information that I 've
received,_

[4] _However, I can tell you that those who have reviewed Larry 's writing,
including me, suffered from varying degrees of shock and concern._

[5] There is no mention anywhere about actually _doing_ something wrong.

[6] tptacek writes that "[...] the claim here [...] is that proselytizing was
in fact an issue." \- but that would only be a problem had Larry tried to
convince someone that "females are subhuman", and again, given that the only
context given is "BDSM" I assume he didn't. He may have said something which
could be interpreted as such, but that's not really the same thing as
consciously "promoting" "the philosophy."

[7] _I also don 't take any offense to the role-playing activities or sexual
preferences of Larry's alternative lifestyle._

------
theossuary
And the response from Dries, the man who made the decision to ban Garfield
from the Drupal project: [http://buytaert.net/living-our-
values](http://buytaert.net/living-our-values)

He seems to allude that not all the facts are out, so it's hard to tell if
this decision was a knee jerk reaction or a reasonable response.

~~~
zokier
No matter what the non-disclosed information might be, doing something this
major without giving the accused a fair chance of defending himself seems very
bad form. Considering that the accused here claims that he doesn't know even
what he is being accused of, either he is blatantly lying or he has been
severely mistreated.

~~~
peterwwillis
It's clear from Dries' post that he was kicked out purely for his views. It's
equivalent to when Mozilla kicked out their founder for supporting an anti-gay
marriage campaign. You can't defend yourself out of it, they simply don't like
who he is.

~~~
angry_octet
Maybe the Mozilla board was completely happy with his choice until it became
public, and meant that his role would compromise fundraising and other
interaction expected of a CEO.

For this guy that reason doesn't apply, and he doesn't have any supervisory
responsibility. I can't see why on the facts available that this would have
happened, and I can't be help think there is something more.

~~~
peterwwillis
Are there any facts available? Maybe I missed them. So far all I've read is a
post saying this guy's values conflict with Drupal's.

~~~
angry_octet
By definition the decision is made in the facts available to the decision
maker and those with statutory responsibilities. This does not include you or
HN. The court of public opinion has no method of adjudicating facts anyway.

------
slitaz
I have not been involved in Drupal and do not know this Larry person.

tldr; He was involved in a subculture called Gorean, and has been a master in
Master/Slave relationships. One of his Slaves was a severely autistic woman.
He talks about BSDM being ok between consenting individuals, etc.

~~~
thehardsphere
I do know this Larry person, but outside of the Drupal project and alternative
lifestyle subcultures.

I would not be surprised at all if everything he wrote is absolutely true, but
key details are omitted.

~~~
munchbunny
Do you mean that you wouldn't be surprised if the omitted details drastically
change the picture from "Larry did nothing wrong" to "there's some pretty
shady stuff"?

~~~
thehardsphere
Yes, that's what I mean exactly. The "pretty shady stuff" need not even be
sexual, if the post by Dries is accurate.

