[scrollaway]

> they just haven't affected you.

Not OP but it's extremely pretentious to assume that.

More generally, assuming that "people against changes (that you personally think are positive towards minorities)" are not part of said minorities tends to be as incorrect as assuming that the people in favor of those changes are part of them.

Furthermore, just because the term "minority" implies that there is a minority of people in that group, there are many minorities which together form far larger groups. So "encountering a minority" isn't uncommon. And I've seen on multiple occasions horribly-arrogant people addressing some of my white male friends, claiming they're oblivious to "the plight of minorities", all because said friends didn't come forward to explain they're gay.

So all that to say, don't assume the person you're replying to hasn't been affected by those things. Even if you're correct, it's not a correct nor even safe thing to assume.

> Making other people feel as welcome in software as you've already been by default.

If you're only superficially aware of the issues involved, it's easy to think that superficial changes will suddenly improve things. It's also all too easy to ignore the fallout of those changes.

Reminds me of PETA's philosophy towards animals: If they can't be free, then they're better off dead. Ignoring that PETA:

1. Isn't objectively correct / morally right

2. Harms the greater cause with their methods (by harming public perception)

In general, not being tactful is a terrible idea. Forcing changes through is a terrible idea. Bullying people is a terrible idea. And if you think these tactics are worth it to "make people feel more welcome", I don't know you.

[JoshTriplett]

I responded to a comment pining for the days of politics not affecting software, by pointing out that software development always has been. I'm not commenting on any particular changes here, I'm commenting on the position of "I don't want to think about politics" being a position that biases in favor of the status quo.

Apart from that, I'm not suggesting that people should ignore normal contribution procedures and conventions when making such contributions. Nothing in my comment is endorsing ever single person who has ever made such a contribution, regardless of the approach they took. I am, however, suggesting that maintainers who refuse such contributions (for reasons like "I don't want to do this" rather than "this change has issues, please address them") are part of the problem.