Node.js has forked into Ayo
sourcecontribute.com
sourcecontribute.com
This isn't another io.js, it's some stupid political bullshit. Their issues read like a comment chain on Tumblr.
http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-spe...
Then people saying they wouldn't participate in an open source project because the person who tweeted the link is a big contributor.
Then arguments for "community over tech", in a technology project...
IO had legitimate issues that were resolved. IO had important contributors onboard.
"Ayo" is attempting to use stolen valor from that successful struggle. They have no major contributors, and zero chance at gaining any traction in a community that is disinterested in SJW politics.
The issue is inconsistent standards. Committee members are held to a lower standard than occasional contributors. Some people don't like that inconsistency and are leaving that culture. That's fine, because Ayo and Node can still share patches. The issue is purely that people who work on Ayo won't have to deal with any of the committee members from Node who can't be bothered to abide by their own code of conduct.
There isn't any evidence presented that any committee member (Rod Vagg?) is violating any code of conduct. He merely tweeted a well defined argument for inclusiveness for neurologically atypical people. It points out that overbearing CoC can be problematic and points to several very important figures that were NAT and it is from a tenured professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of New Mexico.
It is disregarded by the SJW fringe of the node community because he has ties to articles around the men's rights movements.
It's fine that there is a useless fork of node. There are tons of useless forks of many projects, but it's not fine to act like anyone has done anything wrong. He merely apologized for having to censor someone because the CoC is pretty vague: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
It's not a violation of the CoC. They are attacking him for their perceived undermining. No one has to pretend to agree with something in order to not violate it. Acting like his expressed disapproval is a violation of the CoC itself is the exact type of demonization he argues that the CoC leads to.
:D I guess it can be merged then.
Because at the end of the day, working code makes a software project relevant. Nobody can deploy "Correct social and political attitude" to a server or system.
Something about those words...
Yep, 100%. Could you imagine doing this bs internally in the course of work? These people would be fired - their inability to deal with conflict or share the same space as people who disagree with them does little more than stifle the project's success. /eyeroll
The specific issues that were reported include:
[Note: the specific list of issues has been removed at the request of several core collaborators who felt that listing the issues was not fair to Rod. This post was made with an effort at full transparency and with no ill intent towards anyone. No additional harm was intended by listing the issues - jasnell]
Ok, so what did they do? Does the announcement say?
EDIT: It looks like some of the allegations are at https://twitter.com/ohhoe/status/899748838302302212 but I'm having a bit of trouble parsing it.
Would it be possible to get "They said X, which is inappropriate because Y"? I don't know enough to understand why "apologizing to a contributor who had been repeatedly moderated" is bad (or what it even means, really).
On the other hand, I don't want my comment to be interpreted as a dismissal, or to put anyone on the defensive. I'm just asking for more info.
He had the audacity of standing up against black-rimmed eyeglass freedom fighters. How DARE he!
How DARE he suggest a code of conduct is bullshit and infesting projects left and right. I deleted my twitter because these goons are known to stir up shit when there is none.
Bleh, will this ever get better? http://archive.is/f2KWf
Note that the fork is just political grand standing. Look at the issues lol https://github.com/ayojs/ayo/issues
Just like there are bad unit tests, I'm sure there are bad Codes of Conduct, but on the whole it seems like a positive thing to clearly state how things should go in a community.
Of course, the argument can come that there's not going to be much people inside the community asking for a CoC because they're obviously comfortable with how things are running, or they wouldn't keep contributing.
Doesn't seem like an easy call either way.
You may have shot your own foot with that link.
From my understanding, he's concerned about harmful assumptions sometimes made in them and also how the policing of them can be abusive.
I think it means the contributor said something that was not allowed, got moderated, and then "Rod" apologized to the contributor that he was moderated for that.
Basically, undermining the moderation philosophy.
I'm not sure that's what happened, but it's the only way I can make sense of that statement.
Maybe I'm dense but it's not exactly Damore level stuff here.
Codes of conduct are only meaningful if they apply to core contributors with all the more force than occasional contributors. The chief accusation lobbied against a CoC is "oh you just use those to go after people you don't like," much like, say, the police sometimes use US law. The only security against this accusation is that the CoC is applied with more forgiveness at the lowest levels and more stringently to the people-at-the-top. It's not social justice; it's consistency.
Admittedly I think a bunch of HN would like the anti-SJW approach of "let's just burn the CoC and forget that it ever existed," and in that sense I suppose that it is "social-justice-ish", but these are orthogonal concerns. The one concern is that members of the Node.js CTC are beyond reproach for shitty things they do; the other concern is defining clearly what things are shitty.
The accusations would carry more weight if they were accompanied by links to examples of their behavior. At the moment, it reads like you're quoting him even though he probably didn't say that.
I think it is very relevant.
One of the transgressions that caused this split was the retweeting of an article that suggested codes of conduct can be ableist, because they don't account for the eccentricities of people on the Autism spectrum. It's now controversial to suggest that we have compassion for people with mental disabilities instead of throwing them to the wolves.
In a way this is a good thing. Now that there's an SJW fork of node.js, this will be a concrete test of whether SJW-inspired CoCs help or hinder development on open source projects. If Ayo does better than Node, it's evidence in the SXJs' favour. Likewise the opposite.
He also retweeting someone saying they would poop on laptop if the Code of Conduct was removed. This was used as an argument that he was happy he upset people, rather than the obvious pointing out the insanity of the people arguing against him.
I'm sorry: what? Did that actually happen?
/s
'In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”' - http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2009/04/abhorrence-of-demo...
Just because lots of people laughed doesn't mean they're correct. Could just mean they were uncomfortable.
Given that these people are excluded by the biased application of these rules, this forms a space where they can feel more welcome as those rules will be applied fairly within this space. This should encourage novel solutions and contributions to Ayo.js which of course right now Node.js is free to merge in -- but the people who work in Ayo.js won't have to deal with the perceived inconsistent standards of Node.js or the perceived-as-hostile personalities that can only make it in Node.js but not Ayo.js.
In general forks are not bad things and being 'forkophobic' is a sort of 'open-source smell'; see Bryan Cantrill's talks on forking illumos. I don't think anyone is ready to step up as a BDFL for Ayo.js just yet, but I don't think it's out-of-the-question either.
Pretty disturbing when a CoC is not a means to an end but the end itself. Codes of Conduct as the end never end well.
Most extremely disturbing how the evidence has been removed and now secret while the accusations are public.
https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841
I am not really against CoCs, but it seems to me that the world got so crazy that SJWs could and will run through my tweets, and then will feel offended by any remotely conservative link I share, and then will use the CoC to demand my head on a silver platter, potentially getting me fired.
This targeted harassment is by itself a damn good reason to oppose any CoC, they create more problems that they solve.
edit: From his wikipedia page:
Geoffrey F. Miller (born 1965 in Cincinnati, Ohio) is an American evolutionary psychologist, serving as an associate professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico and known for his expertise in sexual selection in human evolution, and for his views on the evolution through sexual selection of the human brain as sexual ornamentation.
When will people stop being so wound up and have some decent arguments about code instead of how to be a nice person in public. Also love how the SJW attributes this to "all the horrible shit that men in tech get to get away with" rather than someone being an asshole (which I can't even see btw because all evidence seems to have been removed.)
Everyone just clamors about the "code of conduct violations" and it isn't clear what they are.
So they're forking because they failed to kick out a guy for unclear conduct violations?
At some point in the future, maybe someone will come up with vaccines for developers that suppress gender characteristics so we can all go back to shooting down bad ideas without being criticized for being sexist, racist, or biased.
As stupid as I thought it was when everyone started blasting Ruby & Rails performance because of a poorly-reasoned Twitter article that should have been about choosing the wrong data stores, I was so glad to see most of those people leave the Ruby community for their greener pasture because it's so much easier to get work done without their constant, wasteful drama.
Then there will be a technical reason because that's where the good new development happens.
It's not clear to my enough people loved over for that to be true. I'm not sure I even have a grasp on what the incident that trigger this was.
End users will (usually) go wherever the software is better.
Until there's enough of an accumulative technical advantage to using their version, most people are going to completely ignore it. Almost no one actually used io.js in production, it was mostly a vehicle for the PoC of using the latest V8 engine.
That being said, Node.js steering has been completely taken over by IBM and Samsung, through their thinly veiled use of StrongLoop and Joyent. Anything that shakes that up even a little is A-ok in my book.
I suppose it could be argued that this is a legitimate piece of an ongoing conversation about how OSS projects should be run, and how people who contribute to OSS should be expected to behave.
The problem is, to me at any rate, it looks like yet another dose of JavaScript community drama with a bunch of people having a good old strop on and behaving like toddlers.
I swear, there are people in the JavaScript world who are not happy unless they're butthurt about something. And I don't know enough of the background or have enough breath left in my body to care.
Isn't that against your own CoC?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15078995
(I don't know why it was flagged -- I only noticed the story, I didn't read it.)
edit: and it's not because of the story, it's probably because of the comments.
Edit: yep, happened again
The system doesn't work if you don't respect the system.
To me, the greatest thing about open source software is that you can fork a project for whatever reason, even if it's a bad one.
I'm not sure what the technical advantages are, but I want to stay/move away from anything related to Google.
io.js was merged back into node.js (or, depending on how you look at it, node.js was merged into io.js, since they adopted some of the governance structure from io.js).
Either way, io.js is no longer a separate entity, which is why Ayo intentionally riffs on the name with a homophone.
Edit: Not a lot of Chris Brown fans on here it seems...
This sounds reasonable to me on its face. But, I wonder if this is a refinement of how a software project should be governed, or just the latest step in a neverending cat-and-mouse game: We have bad behavior and propose a mechanism to address it. Then the mechanism becomes normalized. Then it's eventually used in a fashion counter to its spirit. So a new one is proposed, wash and repeat. Seems like we're moving from "adopt CoCs to defend against shitlords" to "only shitlords care about the CoC."