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