[konceptz]

The technicals of the story are interesting around the software supply chain.

I’m put off by the statement: “I want to be clear that this decision is not about contract value—it is about maintaining a consistent and fair business approach in these volatile times,” he wrote. “I do not believe that it is appropriate, practical, or within our mission to examine specific government projects with the purpose of selecting which U.S. agencies we should or should not do business.”

I hear about practicality all the time at my office and sometimes it’s real and sometimes it’s laziness. This sounds like a little of both but also profit motivated (not saying that’s wrong for a for-profit company).

Interested in your options on code of ethics and the above.

[SpicyLemonZest]

It's definitely impractical to say you won't do business with anyone who does things you don't endorse. Imagine an electrician trying to demand a certification that the buildings he works on will host only ethical tenants. You just can't run a company that way; even people who do meet your ethical standards won't do business with you.

If you think that ICE is so uniquely bad that they specifically need to be boycotted, that makes sense. Without inviting any debate on whether it's true, it's a consistent position that can be reasonably applied.

[cco]

There were a lot of electricians on the Death Star...

[sneak]

You absolutely can run a company that way. I do, as do many others. My company has grossed multiple millions of dollars operating that way.

[kortilla]

Congrats, you have very mainstream ethics. Imagine trying to run a business that uses no fossil fuels and does no business with anyone using fossil fuels.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I'm glad to hear that you can make it work. About how frequently do you cancel contracts because you've discovered your client is doing something unethical?

[sneak]

I recently declined a client who appears to be a white supremacist. I have declined work in the past due to the potential client organizations working with the military, police, or other violent organizations.

We all have this responsibility to place nonviolence above profit.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I think that's a very different thing than, as Chef is being asked to do here, terminating existing clients because they got some bad press on Twitter. Both in terms of your own operations (sudden cashflow interruptions are hard) and your clients' willingness to do business (can I justify the risk of waking up one Monday to learn that our CI provider is cutting me off and all development is dead in the water?)

[rjf72]

It's a PR statement so I wouldn't read much into it. It's designed solely to yield the least negative response possible in a polarizing situation.

But if we ignore the meaningfulness or truthfulness of the statement, let's take two hypothetical societies. In one society people agree to cooperate and trade with others when there's a mutual self interest, even if they happen to despise their partner otherwise. In the other society, people engage in a substantial degree of scrutiny and only trade and cooperate with others whom they are meaningfully aligned with. Which society do you think would have the better outcomes for whichever metrics you might imagine? I'd start with economic/technological progress, war vs peace, tribal vs unified (not to say homogeneous) society, etc.

I think there is a clear answer to my hypothetical, but perhaps people see things differently. I'd be quite curious to know how.

[bradleyjg]

It does seem odd and convenient to say I’ve got no problem making money from this part of the government but I won’t sell to that part of the government. It’s the same Congress and President making decisions for all the parts. Either it’s beyond the pale or it isn’t. I mean, would you do business with ISIS so long as the particular sub-project you were providing material for was innocuous?

[moomin]

I don’t think this tracks. I mean, the American Government is also part of the human race. Because we object to one part of the human race should we refuse to deal with any of it?

Humans have to make moral choices about where they personally draw the line and where they draw the boundary. Around the organisation that falsely imprisons Americans and runs concentration camps seems like a starting point.

[bradleyjg]

No one is in charge of making decisions for the human race. The President and Congress make decisions for all of the federal government.

If you thought the Windows division of Microsoft was acting extremely unethically would you still do business with the XBox division? It’s one CEO and one board that runs both.

[extra88]

Yes, because I know from experience with large organizations that there can be a lot of variance between different parts of an organization. Also, relatively little that happens is directly controlled or decided at the top.

[kube-system]

> The President and Congress make decisions for all of the federal government.

That’s fundamentally not true. Appropriations and appointments are not the same as “making decisions”, but even if they were, the judiciary still exists.

[bradleyjg]

Let’s circle back to the core issue here: are you or anyone else really claiming that the policies ICE is pursuing under Acting Director Matthew Albence, which so many people object to, are against the wishes of Acting United States Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan or President Donald Trump? Or even that those two haven’t had a direct role is causing them to be pursued?

[kube-system]

No, I am not claiming either of those things.

[mcguire]

Yes?

(Having a misanthropic moment here.)