Seems to be disagreement on either architecture, failure to implement specific features or fix specific bugs, and angers over the policies of the node.js maintainers.
> I'd be open to re-merging if and when the problems plaguing Node.js are resolved. Problematic people removed; use of "policy" as an excuse ended; power structures reorganized to emphasize community over tech. So far though it seems like there's little desire to fix these problems from those with the power to do so.
> I'd be open to re-merging if and when the problems plaguing Node.js are resolved. Problematic people removed; use of "policy" as an excuse ended; power structures reorganized to emphasize community over tech. So far though it seems like there's little desire to fix these problems from those with the power to do so.
Tech is nothing without people behind it. I don't think it's stupid to take a few moments to think about whether driving away some members of the contributing community away is worth it for what was said.
That same comment is in the Node.js readme as well. And if Ayo.js was objecting to the code of conduct, then they would have removed it when the edited the rest of the readme.
If it ends up having a similar impact like IO.js, I would say, why not. Fork it every other month, I wouldn't care.
If this is less "technical issues need to be resolved and we need to be agile" and more "I hate the other person so I won't work with him/her" though, then it would just cause problems all around the community.
Since the comments say this is probably due to political reasons, I feel like this fork would mean a lot more if it included contributions that were rejected by nodejs as well as a communitity of contributors to keep this fork active.
> Almost a full day was devoted to agreeing to name the standard "Small Computer System Interface", which Boucher intended to be pronounced "sexy", but ENDL's Dal Allan pronounced the new acronym as "scuzzy" and that stuck.
For those asking what the reason of the fork is it looks like it has something to do with a code of conduct violation by one of the node developers that the steering committee voted to ignore. I have no idea what the story behind it as it doesn't seem like anyone has actually published the full story.
Regardless of the reason, this seems like a premature announcement of the project. There isn't a roadmap, list of distinguishing features, or the guiding principles. More information is definitly needed here.
Going through those links it's still not obvious what's happening. @rvagg has some kind of leadership position, has some strong opinions about codes of conduct (not the only one), and they're forking the project for that?
I'm just wondering what would've happened if Rod was forced to resign and the other <50% voters who voted against it. Maybe a fork of NodeJS, but this time from Rod's fellows?
People are free to leave a community they feel unwelcome in.
If it's an open source software project, they are also free to fork the software and make their own project around it. While, obviously, two parallel projects divided by interpersonal issues isn't ideal and likely duplicates efforts, it's better than losing the work of either of the factions, so, given the existence of the social issues, it's quite possibly the best acheivable outcome.
Rod: "C'mon mate, did you even read it? This is worthy of discussion, not simplistic dismissal". It doesn't seem a heated or offensive discussion to me. He just posted an article and was willing to discuss it with the community.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the tweets too. And it seems the Node Technical Steering Committee had similar thoughts, since they rejected the proposal of expelling Rod.
I understand the fork is not on political reasons which may be very well grounded. But I don't think they are not explained to the public well enough. There must be a clear answer to "Why should I care?" but there is not. This will probably lead to ignorance and dismissal.
That "anti-COC" article is as anti-COC as James Damore's memo was anti-diversity.
What it does is highlight how speech codes can be used by the socially hyperfluent to bully and dominate the less fluent, by placing an unreasonable burden on a speaker to have 100% prediction accuracy of every potential negative response.
There's a huge difference between anti-diversity, and anti-forced-diversity for the sake of diversity.
I don't see why this is so complicated, other than perhaps it seems SJW types can't fathom the idea that hiring managers are actually capable of talking to a person, getting to know them, and then capable of deciding whether or not they're qualified for the job without checking off a list of what should be considered irrelevant qualifiers.... Skin color, penis girth, propensity for future development of diabeetus, etc.
Also, it's quite clear that you didn't read the memo at all. Maybe the Buzzfeed condensed op-ed on it. Did he have some inflammatory opinions that maybe aren't correct? Hell yeah, but they're his opinions, he said a lot of other stuff that was entirely poignant, relevant, and accurate.
This yes/no true/false BS has got to stop. You don't get to hone in on somebody's one solitary opinion that might open up conversation to a "non-safe space", cry misogynist/racist/rapist, and then auto-dismiss the rest of their arguments like you've discovered some sort of irl Konami Konversation Kode.
That's terribad debating and awful human communication.
James Demore's firing really only proves that he was mostly right.
The way this fork has been presented clearly indicates this fork has no future.
If you indeed have problems with the way nodejs is run, the first thing you do with a fork is present it upfront in your fork, with some idea on how you're going to go forward. All you see here is one issue potentially discussing some bad policies or people. wishy washy.
And discussion in another thread is almost satirical -- discussing "lifetime" of a benevolent dictator "for life". [1]
There's no clear leadership or goals for this fork.
The previous fork was successful because a lot of the developers went with the fork and it was fulfilling an unserviced need in the community for a node built on newer versions of v8. Does anyone know if this fork has much of a chance of survival?
The previous fork was io.js, it's contributions have now been brought back under the Node.js umbrella. This new fork is almost a non-story by comparison, if it gets even a minor level of traction amongst developers I'll be surprised. Even the repo creator has half-arsed the readme.
io.js forked 2014, planning to keep io.js up-to-date with the V8 engine. Node.js foundation was later founded and later in 2015 io.js and node.js merged into Node 4.0.
Make sure you use proper [1] CoC next time you start new project. Proper as in not easy to abuse for political reason or just because some SJW decided you are wrong.
Good christ, I can't believe I'm responding to an ESR blog post, but this "djangoconcardiff" account joined Github [1] the same day every comment in that thread was posted… which was, by the way, months after the DjangoCon in Cardiff wrapped up. How do people not see that whole incident as the bad-faith troll that it clearly is?
I've been clicking around on twitter and github for five minutes and there seems to be zero specifics about what actually happened.
What's with the secrecy? Not saying this is a non-issue, but the best way to present your issue as a non-issue is to be this vague about what you're complaining about.
And that the rest of the community is supporting his alleged abusiveness (e.g. by voting to keep him on board). It's not just because they dislike him, it's because the community in general seems fine with his kind of behavior.
Not that I am supporting it, just explaining why in their view this is bigger than just him.
They're flipping out because of a tweet, and all it had was a link to an article against codes of conduct.
"Additionally he discussed private information from the moderation repo in the public thread, which is explicitly against he moderation policy".
I don't like such secrecy. What's going on in there? Wasn't community so important, why can't we know?
So what if that guy doesn't like CoCs? It is fine for people to have other opinions. This is another case of people over reacting over small stuff like it happened with Brendan Eich or Douglas Crockford.
While I definitely see where you are coming from, simplifying people's emotional reactions to things to "some people need to chill out" belittles their feelings in a way that isn't helpful. We can support folks who are being attacked unfairly (as @rvagg appears to be from a cursory review of the "evidence" against him) without belittling those who feel maligned.
used the same tactic against Crockford last year (Nodevember conf), also without any concrete evidence other than "he made me feel bad." If you go through regular tweets of the other heckers like Kat,
> They are bullies and they should be recognized as such.
100% agree. I've had to previously block both of these users you mentioned for harassment over Twitter.
It got to the point where one of them started taking out of context screenshots of my Twitter stream and attempting to rally other SJW twitter users to send harassing messages to me.
I did my own research weeks ago and found that Rod didn't do anything wrong. If anyone finds evidence to the contrary, please let me know.
So are they bullies that need to be stood up to or are they stressed out folks who need to chill? Given nothing else than what is here, I would err on reading those tweets as coming from a place of struggle, not a desire for domination. Folks being unable to follow their own rules when positions are swapped is true more often of these sorts of rules than one might expect.
Indeed. I had a look at all the brouhaha on the node.js github yesterday (I love me some open-source soap-opera drama, especially when it involves non or barely-coding SJW's - it's my guilty pleasure) and had a quick look at the commit histories of the most vocal "This guy has to go!!!1!" proponents - the code-to-noise ratio is unsurprisingly low.
That said, it is a bit unfortunate to fork or at least to try to fork a project like Node.js over these reasons. Although it is quite likely that the fork was mainly created to pressure the Node-devs to remove rvagg from the project after all.
What puzzles me: Even if we agree that rvagg violated the Code of Conduct, I am not sure that this should be enough to remove him from the TSC (Technical Steering Committee). Here are the alleged violations, so that you can decide for yourself: https://twitter.com/ohhoe/status/899748838302302212.
"Rod should have predicted the kind of response this tweet received"
I was on the fence until I hit that part. The tacit admission that they're holding him responsible for what other people are saying on Twitter is all I need to know. They wanna feel like righteous warriors defeating evil.
Heads I win, tails you lose situation. If you say something uncivil, you are guilty. If you are perfectly reasonable and somebody trolls and curses you out on twitter, you are still guilty, because you "should have predicted" they'd do that if you disagree with them.
149 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 230 ms ] threadhttps://github.com/ayojs/ayo/issues/4
> I'd be open to re-merging if and when the problems plaguing Node.js are resolved. Problematic people removed; use of "policy" as an excuse ended; power structures reorganized to emphasize community over tech. So far though it seems like there's little desire to fix these problems from those with the power to do so.
> I'd be open to re-merging if and when the problems plaguing Node.js are resolved. Problematic people removed; use of "policy" as an excuse ended; power structures reorganized to emphasize community over tech. So far though it seems like there's little desire to fix these problems from those with the power to do so.
...speechless.
client: Why is there only clear text and flashing ads on my screen?
developer: Oh, yes - we implemented the new ayo libraries!
client: This looks like shit. Give me my site back!
developer: but, you don't understand! The new libraries are great, they emphasize community over tech!
client: [......]
client: [calls her P.A.] Richard, go find me a new tech team.
https://github.com/nodejs/node
If this is less "technical issues need to be resolved and we need to be agile" and more "I hate the other person so I won't work with him/her" though, then it would just cause problems all around the community.
Good luck to them though and anything that improves the node space is welcome in my book. Forks included.
> Almost a full day was devoted to agreeing to name the standard "Small Computer System Interface", which Boucher intended to be pronounced "sexy", but ENDL's Dal Allan pronounced the new acronym as "scuzzy" and that stuck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCSI
I'll never pronounce GIF as JIF though.
Regardless of the reason, this seems like a premature announcement of the project. There isn't a roadmap, list of distinguishing features, or the guiding principles. More information is definitly needed here.
What makes this newsworthy? Is it a credible fork? What's the reason for the fork? Who is contributing?
> Current Project Team Members
> To be written
Hmmm.
"Repeated ToC violations by an authority figure went unaddressed."
https://twitter.com/alicegoldfuss/status/900109726872068096
Not sure what ToC is, but the alleged violations appear to be of Code of Conduct.
Alleged violations are described here: https://twitter.com/ohhoe/status/899748838302302212
Most links are private, but here are the public ones:
https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841
https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887790865766268928
https://twitter.com/captainsafia/status/887782785221615618
https://twitter.com/nodebotanist/status/887724138516951049
https://twitter.com/rvagg
https://github.com/rvagg
What?
His stance against Code of Conduct, as evident by this Tweet: https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841 and follow up comments were considered inappropriate by some.
Even more details here: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310
""" The TSC members were not able to reach a natural consensus on the steps forward so a vote was called on two specific questions:
(A) Should Rod be removed from the TSC: Yes or No (B) Should Rod be asked to voluntarily resign from the TSC: Yes or No
There are 13 members of the TSC. 10 members voted, two abstained, and Rod did not participate.
The vote came down 60% against removing Rod from the TSC and 60% against asking Rod to voluntarily resign. """
I'm just wondering what would've happened if Rod was forced to resign and the other <50% voters who voted against it. Maybe a fork of NodeJS, but this time from Rod's fellows?
If it's an open source software project, they are also free to fork the software and make their own project around it. While, obviously, two parallel projects divided by interpersonal issues isn't ideal and likely duplicates efforts, it's better than losing the work of either of the factions, so, given the existence of the social issues, it's quite possibly the best acheivable outcome.
https://github.com/ayojs/ayo/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
Try working on an open source project for 5 years and then we can talk about altruism.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the people forking Node here are trying to do, though perhaps not with a particular time limit.
What I see is a screenshot of a GitHub issue (https://twitter.com/ohhoe/status/899748838302302212) which was already redacted and does no longer provide any links. Tweet in support of "anti-CoC article" is there (https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841) but that alone would not assert a "harmful person" in my opinion.
I understand the fork is not on political reasons which may be very well grounded. But I don't think they are not explained to the public well enough. There must be a clear answer to "Why should I care?" but there is not. This will probably lead to ignorance and dismissal.
What it does is highlight how speech codes can be used by the socially hyperfluent to bully and dominate the less fluent, by placing an unreasonable burden on a speaker to have 100% prediction accuracy of every potential negative response.
http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-spe...
That SJWs call it a strawman is just another example of how they always refuse to follow their own rules of empathy and inclusion.
I don't see why this is so complicated, other than perhaps it seems SJW types can't fathom the idea that hiring managers are actually capable of talking to a person, getting to know them, and then capable of deciding whether or not they're qualified for the job without checking off a list of what should be considered irrelevant qualifiers.... Skin color, penis girth, propensity for future development of diabeetus, etc.
Also, it's quite clear that you didn't read the memo at all. Maybe the Buzzfeed condensed op-ed on it. Did he have some inflammatory opinions that maybe aren't correct? Hell yeah, but they're his opinions, he said a lot of other stuff that was entirely poignant, relevant, and accurate.
This yes/no true/false BS has got to stop. You don't get to hone in on somebody's one solitary opinion that might open up conversation to a "non-safe space", cry misogynist/racist/rapist, and then auto-dismiss the rest of their arguments like you've discovered some sort of irl Konami Konversation Kode.
That's terribad debating and awful human communication.
James Demore's firing really only proves that he was mostly right.
If you indeed have problems with the way nodejs is run, the first thing you do with a fork is present it upfront in your fork, with some idea on how you're going to go forward. All you see here is one issue potentially discussing some bad policies or people. wishy washy.
And discussion in another thread is almost satirical -- discussing "lifetime" of a benevolent dictator "for life". [1]
There's no clear leadership or goals for this fork.
[1] https://github.com/ayojs/ayo/issues/2
That won't be confusing in conversation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Node.js#History
If you're not 100% onboard with the politics, you're a horrible person.
https://forum.golem.de/kommentare/opensource/open-source-nod...
[1] https://github.com/fantasylandinst/fcop
Possibly relevant:
Eric S. Raymond: Why Hackers Must Eject the SJWs (2015)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
[1]: https://archive.is/UDFZt#selection-193.0-193.16
What's with the secrecy? Not saying this is a non-issue, but the best way to present your issue as a non-issue is to be this vague about what you're complaining about.
Not that I am supporting it, just explaining why in their view this is bigger than just him.
"Additionally he discussed private information from the moderation repo in the public thread, which is explicitly against he moderation policy".
I don't like such secrecy. What's going on in there? Wasn't community so important, why can't we know?
So what if that guy doesn't like CoCs? It is fine for people to have other opinions. This is another case of people over reacting over small stuff like it happened with Brendan Eich or Douglas Crockford.
Oh gee, some people need to chill out.
https://twitter.com/nodebotanist/status/887724138516951049
used the same tactic against Crockford last year (Nodevember conf), also without any concrete evidence other than "he made me feel bad." If you go through regular tweets of the other heckers like Kat,
https://twitter.com/maybekatz/status/900414216888139776
they're breaking their own CoC daily, but that's apparently fine because hating on white/men/straight/christian is considered PC.
Why do you give these sick people lee way is beyond me. They are bullies and they should be recognized as such.
100% agree. I've had to previously block both of these users you mentioned for harassment over Twitter.
It got to the point where one of them started taking out of context screenshots of my Twitter stream and attempting to rally other SJW twitter users to send harassing messages to me.
I did my own research weeks ago and found that Rod didn't do anything wrong. If anyone finds evidence to the contrary, please let me know.
It's hard enough having the JS community taken seriously with the zeitgeist framework changing too quickly.
Then again, this doesn't seem anywhere near as crazy as the IO.js days.
That said, it is a bit unfortunate to fork or at least to try to fork a project like Node.js over these reasons. Although it is quite likely that the fork was mainly created to pressure the Node-devs to remove rvagg from the project after all.
What puzzles me: Even if we agree that rvagg violated the Code of Conduct, I am not sure that this should be enough to remove him from the TSC (Technical Steering Committee). Here are the alleged violations, so that you can decide for yourself: https://twitter.com/ohhoe/status/899748838302302212.
I was on the fence until I hit that part. The tacit admission that they're holding him responsible for what other people are saying on Twitter is all I need to know. They wanna feel like righteous warriors defeating evil.