"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
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.
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.