Duke Uni libraries decamp from 37Signals' Basecamp over CTO's blogs The Duke University Libraries have decided to stop using 37Signal's Basecamp project management software after almost a decade due to public statements from the supplier's co-founder and chief technology officer. "We came to this decision after weighing the level of its use in our organization, which is considerable, against …
"Hansson is entitled to his opinions, the libraries are also entitled to choose their business partners."
Can't argue with that other than the observation that this "Hansson" chap is a (natural) person while the "libraries" are not.
The latter clearly cannot hold opinions but can have and enforce policies.
The libraries serve natural people who will have opinions which the management might reasonably take into account. Nor is it simply users and managers opinions. They will no doubt be a diverse lot and for many the views Hansson expressed may represent a real threat. It's also reasonable for the managers to take that into account.
@Doctor Syntax: “The libraries serve natural people who will have opinions which the management might reasonably take into account. Nor is it simply users and managers opinions. They will no doubt be a diverse lot and for many the views Hansson expressed may represent a real threat. It's also reasonable for the managers to take that into account.”
You don't ban Fords for what Mr. Ford wrote, you ban Fords when, and only for the duration that, the dribbling masses notice what Mr. Ford wrote.
Whatever Mr. Basecamp said or did (are we allowed to know or do we just trust whatever comes from this librarian's gut?) will be forgotten in a month and the cancel gun moved on to the next person large enough for the zeitgeist to notice but small enough to be successfully bullied by it.
What is your evidence that "Mr. Basecamp" is being bullied by Duke? Duke says, "We don't share your values, Mr. Basecamp, we're out."
When I perceive that a leader's values are mistaken, I tend to also perceive that there are likely other flaws in the overall design of the work of their organization. It's like, "Hey, if you are short-sighted on DEI, you might also not be adequately considering how to build project management software."
I'm not an apologist for M$, but their slogan about unlocking people's potential is really, really, really on-point. That's what good software should do. If I think a company isn't so sure about my approach to helping unlock people's potential (DEI), then I'm naturally going to have doubts about their software's ability to do the same.
For whatever it's worth, every time I use Oracle ERP (damn it, the horse is NOT dead, I tell you!), I am very aware that it was created by a company ruled by a culture of fear wrought by their fairly psychotic and micromanaging leader. Right?
I said I'm not an apologist for M$, and I did not say anything to suggest that I think they have successfully realized their slogan. All I said is that it's a good slogan, and it does represent that way a really human-centered organization, such as a large university, likes to think about their own mission, which is likely to also guide how they select partners.
You dont understand the hypocrisy of ignoring the terrible inbalance and poor treatment of Nike shoe factories in Asia or wherever they are ?
In 1860 blacks were paid nothing while their masters got thousands, today black and white American sports personalities get millions while kids in a Nike factory get a dollar or two.
What do you think a black american slave of 1860 would say about the Nike situation ? In both cases today and then, the balanec is completely wrong, in fact its worse now by many factors.
If Mr Ford was alive today, and said the things he said over a hundred years ago now, the library would be well within its rights to cancel any deal they had with Ford (maybe executives get a company car?). But to point out that someone 100+ years ago said something offensive is just stupid whataboutery.
The Co-founder of BaseCamp made public stupid claims that others disagree with. He and his firm have to take the fallout of that. It could have been other firms agree with his statement and hence signup. But just as likely, if someone disagrees, then they are entitled to take their business elsewhere.
Yes, and show me where any of the current management of Ford Motor Company haver made any statements repeating the bollocks of the original Mr Ford? If so, then I'm sure we could find a lot of other firms willing to back a ban on them. But what someone said 100 years ago is irrelevant in this day and age. And it's just useless whataboutism to to bring it up.
There are enough crappy firms alive and well, doing and saying evil and dumb shit to focus on right now. Lets let the stupidy of the past go, so we can focus on calling out the stupidity of the present...
ig: Yes, and show me where any of the current management of Ford Motor Company haver made any statements repeating the bollocks of the original Mr Ford?
cow:
Mr Ford is not irrelevant, his NAME is on the BADGE of every FORD manfuactured.
The badge on all FORD vehicles celebrates MR FORD.
Americans love the word FOUNDER, goto linked in or any article here and you can see it everywhere, founder and ceo this and that, so im sorry Founder is very much important to american business and perception.
If VW was never called that and instead had HITLER or FURHER on their badge would it be a approprite to keep that ?
Honest question: can someone point me at the source statements DHH has made that have caused such a fuss?
So far I have found:
https://world.hey.com/dhh/the-waning-days-of-dei-s-dominance-9a5b656c
https://world.hey.com/dhh/the-law-of-the-land-c2231109
Summarising, he says DEI has "worthwhile aspirations" but disagrees with the methods being used. Whether you agree with that position or not, it seems to be a reasonably argued viewpoint.
Or is there more to it than that?
I live in the Duke community, and am on the more liberal side of the political spectrum (even for Duke). I suspect I would find this fellow distasteful and would not want to talk to him.
The second part of the article mentions about an employee blacklist, which is just stupid on his part - is he really not going to hire someone qualified because they disagree with him politically? But I can see that would lead to a subpar product and is a good reason to look for a new supplier, so I wonder if that was really the main reason for the change as such. That makes good business sense to me.
I do worry about not buying his company's products because of things he wrote separately from his job that are political, which is what the early part of the article implies. If he is posting as an individual and saying he's skeptical about DEI... well okay, one imagines his board will keep him in check, ultimately DEI is about doing what's good for business*. If they need to out him it shouldn't take long.
I don't see how a rando's political opinion, even by someone on the board, means his (big) company's products are bad. When I worked for Michael Dell he never touched my code, that was a pretty flat structure but I'm pretty sure he barely knew my product existed. I am sure I do not agree with the political opinions of my current CEO but he mostly lets me work in peace so what do I care, as long as he's not keeping qualified people off my team?
Honestly I'm not worried about this guy or his company or even Ruby on Rails, I'm worried about a job interview in 2035 where someone sees my daughter is in a lesbian relationship on Facetwitgram and that makes it too risky to employ us because the American National Socialist Party** finds us problematic. Unfortunately the pendulum does swing both ways, I'd like us to be more in the middle when that happens.
*I have worked in diverse and not diverse divisions (not white but 85%+ same culture), and it is very true that the output of the former was loads better.
**No this is not a jab at either Republicans or Democrats, I think their members are largely well meaning.
Will they do a check on the political opinions of all members of the board and all execs of all their suppliers? Are they going to send out forms to all suppliers to check on their politics or just pick on one? I get a form to sign, as a supplier to universities, where I have to state that I am not involved in modern slavery. I'm sure that is tremendously effective in ending modern slavery, although I am often tempted to write 'Friday is very happy with his duties' and see if anyone notices.
Blacklisting a company because they don't like the politics of the CEO, is damaging to all the employees of his company and their families. So they are targeting lots of little guys who probably dislike their boss (most people do), for a bit of virtue signalling.
And what about the users of the library? Are Duke happy about letting people in to do research on political issues that may lead them to write unpleasant things on their blogs. Surely that would make Duke an enabler of online hate and harms, in a nation where online posts may be regarded as dangerous, but guns are easy to buy. Will they be analysing what use students make of their time at Duke? Will they be only letting library users in if their politics match those of Duke's board?
Operating a business I don't give a toss about the diverse politics of my suppliers or of my customers, because I believe they have a right to hold and voice opinions I dislike if they wish. I don't have a veto over other people's thoughts and speech and expect them not to have a veto over mine. Because that is what free speech is all about. And nobody should value free speech more than a university, where academic freedom is fundamental to everything they do. The moment you add caveats to that, you are no longer upholding free speech, and have begun the slide down to state censorship, book burners and fascists. Like encryption, free speech requires absolute adherence. Take a bit of it away, and you have taken all of it away.
So, I buy from and sell to all sorts. Lib-Dems, Labour, Tories, LGBT, Neo-Nazis and Brexit supporters. Even Man City fans. Because I respect their right to be the people they are. That's how we all get on with each other. The alternatives usually lead to conflict. If I want to disagree with them, I will write a response to their blog post. Because that is the civilised thing to do.
Do you know whats even more damaging ?
The concept of a CEO. They actively do far more harm in so many ways to companies and workers. Do i really need to give exampkes of the CEO TAX, where they pay themselves crazy compensation while cutting back on workers, because the money ahs to come from soewhere, and then theres the down right stpiditues of the vast majority of ceos.
The world would be a better place without CEOs. The concept is undemocratic.
An employee at Basecamp told Hansson that taking the piss out of what employees found to be funny names should stop because racism tends to start with casual disdain for another culture and escalate slowly over time. Hansson finds instances of said employee doing the exact thing they wanted banned and used it to prove the point that they are a living example that taking the piss out of funny names to blow of steam does not in fact result in racism. Allegedly that resulted in a complaint to HR, because Hansson took the open complaint and followed it up with an open response.
Sexton's response to all this is even funnier. He's whining that Hansson characterised social justice protests as riots when this is the very same country which referred to people taking an unauthorised tour of Capitol Hill as an insurrection. Exaggeration is what Americans do and let's face it, that's what keeps the whole "freedom" pantomime going in a place that's focused more on constant proxy wars than ensuring its own people live happy, healthy lives.
If Duke actually gave two hoots about anything, they wouldn't have been paying private for-profit enterprises in lieu of leveraging the combined talent of their students, faculty and philanthropic connections. The good news is that this is very much Sexton's chance to fix things by adopting some decent, ethical FOSS in place of proprietary/cloudy garbage. If that actually happens, I will very much applaud Duke and Sexton on a decent, logical choice regardless.
If I buy something I generally don't care about the people who made it because I don't really know what they think or what they stand for. However, if some CEO says something stupid, not only in public but in front of journalists, then I'm going to question if I want to give that person money. That's just how freedom works.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
