[noelwelsh]

Politics is unavoidable when groups of people get together, as politics is defined as how groups make decisions [1].

Therefore, "open source software should be a-political and open to all" is by definition both impossible (you cannot have a group without politics) and a political statement (as it is suggesting a decision making process.) Furthermore, don't mistake a conservative position (e.g. everything should stay the same) for an apolitical one.

[1]: For example:

> politics: “who gets what, where, when, and how”—the process for resolving disputes and allocating scarce resources"

https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pa...

[skywhopper]

Open source “should be open to all” is extremely political. DHH himself regularly posts rants making it clear he doesn’t agree with this. Railing against codes of conduct that are meant to making open source more welcoming to folks who have historically been excluded is itself a political statement that “not everyone is welcome”.

[phoronixrly]

We're way beyond that. We're at a point where DHH rants publicly that people must not be allowed to live in London unless they're native Brits, where the definition of 'native Brits' (apart from being xenophobic by definition) looks to suspiciously exclude non-white people (thus levelling up to outright racist)...

I am not sure how OP can spin this as being 'very outspoken with his beliefs that open source software should be a-political and open to all instead of the political purity tests the activists were pushing'...