Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Effective immediately I am stepping down from the Nodejs TSC

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 142 posts

Re: Effective immediately I am stepping down from the Nodejs TSC

#121

Post by slang800 »

mcphage wrote: post #77
strken wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit worrying that the steering committee for such a widely used technology, one which billion-dollar companies have built stacks around, could fracture because of a twitter fight. Without knowing the facts, the fact that we even know this happened and that it briefly ended up on the front page of HN is concerning.

> It's a bit worrying that the steering committee for such a widely used technology, one which billion-dollar companies have built stacks around, could fracture because of a twitter fight. Any group of people leading an organization can fracture because of a fight; it's nothing new, and the fact that it happened on twitter is immaterial. > Without knowing the facts, the fact that we even know this happened and that i…

Well, it ended up getting archived before the list was removed. Whether that's right or wrong, the info is out there: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.co...

Re: Effective immediately I am stepping down from the Nodejs TSC

#122

Post by geofft »

smsm42 wrote: post #115
geofft wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I'm not sure how that's relevant.

That's pretty much what happened to nodejs, as far as I can see - somebody said that CoC and speech codes may have downsides, people freaked out and demanded that either he's booted out or they leave.

I am not a Node community member so my knowledge is limited, but that seems like an oversimplification for two reasons: one, he is on the team charged with upholding the CoC, and two, he apologized for the work his teammates did to uphold the CoC.

Re: Effective immediately I am stepping down from the Nodejs TSC

#123

Post by chc »

syshum wrote: post #116
fixermark wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with most things in life, there are nuances. The free speech right guarded by the First Amendment in the US is not absolute; there are categories that don't meet the criteria (such as the "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" example, Schenck v. United States, 1919). There's room for difference of opinion on whether an individual circumstance crosses into the "Creating a clear and present danger" category,…

>>>The free speech right guarded by the First Amendment in the US is not absolute; there are categories that don't meet the criteria (such as the "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" example, Schenck v. United States, 1919). Except for the fact that I am not talking about, nor ever used a reference to the 1st amendment to the US Constitution I am talking about Free Speech, not Constitutional law. Those are di…

That's why I never use the "yell fire" example. I always use the example of ordering a hit on somebody. Technically all you did was speak, but that speech has big consequences beyond simple conversation. It would be ludicrous to say that the principle of free speech demands we allow people to put hits on other people. That's an extreme example, but it illustrates that there are reasonable limits to free speech.

Re: Effective immediately I am stepping down from the Nodejs TSC

#124

Post by smsm42 »

geofft wrote: post #122
smsm42 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty much what happened to nodejs, as far as I can see - somebody said that CoC and speech codes may have downsides, people freaked out and demanded that either he's booted out or they leave.

I am not a Node community member so my knowledge is limited, but that seems like an oversimplification for two reasons: one, he is on the team charged with upholding the CoC, and two, he apologized for the work his teammates did to uphold the CoC.

What is wrong with considering downsides of CoC while enforcing it? I'd say that exactly what person charged with enforcing it should be doing, and if they refuse to even admit the thought there might be any and haven't discussed them before, they may not be ready to enforce it properly. Reevaluating the premises and ensuring that upsides of the current rules exceed downsides, and challenging them if they do not, is the part of a healthy governance process, and flipping out at the mere thought of it is not a sign of a healthy one.

Imagine a judge that is sure there's never downsides and unintended consequences of any law, and never admits a thought that the application of law can be unjust or hurt somebody. Wouldn't you be scared of such Judge Dredd?

Re: Effective immediately I am stepping down from the Nodejs TSC

#125

Post by geofft »

smsm42 wrote: post #124
geofft wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a Node community member so my knowledge is limited, but that seems like an oversimplification for two reasons: one, he is on the team charged with upholding the CoC, and two, he apologized for the work his teammates did to uphold the CoC.

What is wrong with considering downsides of CoC while enforcing it? I'd say that exactly what person charged with enforcing it should be doing, and if they refuse to even admit the thought there might be any and haven't discussed them before, they may not be ready to enforce it properly. Reevaluating the premises and ensuring that upsides of the current rules exceed downsides, and challenging them if they do not, is…

> What is wrong with considering downsides of CoC while enforcing it? I'd say that exactly what person charged with enforcing it should be doing, and if they refuse to even admit the thought there might be any and haven't discussed them before, they may not be ready to enforce it properly. Reevaluating the premises and ensuring that upsides of the current rules exceed downsides, and challenging them if they do not, is the part of a healthy governance process, and flipping out at the mere thought of it is not a sign of a healthy one.

I agree.

I think that's not what happened here:

https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841

It's not an article about CoCs, and it repeats a claim that's been both debunked before and is pretty scientifically inaccurate about people with autism/Asperger's syndrome.

This is more like a judge who tweets, "If you haven't thought about the problems with gold-fringed flags in courtrooms, here's a good place to start," and links to some freemen-on-the-land piece. We don't want that judge either. A judge who uncritically links to such an article isn't actually participating in serious discussion or challenges of the American legal system.

Re: Effective immediately I am stepping down from the Nodejs TSC

#126

Post by graphememes »

fixermark wrote: post #79
strictnein wrote: post #34

The unredacted details still feel like they're missing something: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.co... "...Rod’s first action was to apologize to a contributor who had been repeatedly moderated. Rod did not discuss the issue with other members of the CTC/TSC first. The result undermined the moderation process as it was occurring" "Rod did not moderate himself when asked by another foundatio…

Of everything in there, this one is probably the most problematic. """ His tweeting of screen captures of immature responses suggests pleasure at having upset members of the JavaScript community and others. As a perceived leader, such behavior reflects poorly on the project. https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887790865766268928 """

""" problematic """

Wow, trying to censor someones social account now.

Re: Effective immediately I am stepping down from the Nodejs TSC

#127

Post by smsm42 »

geofft wrote: post #125
smsm42 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is wrong with considering downsides of CoC while enforcing it? I'd say that exactly what person charged with enforcing it should be doing, and if they refuse to even admit the thought there might be any and haven't discussed them before, they may not be ready to enforce it properly. Reevaluating the premises and ensuring that upsides of the current rules exceed downsides, and challenging them if they do not, is…

> What is wrong with considering downsides of CoC while enforcing it? I'd say that exactly what person charged with enforcing it should be doing, and if they refuse to even admit the thought there might be any and haven't discussed them before, they may not be ready to enforce it properly. Reevaluating the premises and ensuring that upsides of the current rules exceed downsides, and challenging them if they do not, i…

> It's not an article about CoCs

It's not. But it contains thoughts relevant to the topic. Surprisingly, you are allowed to support your points with articles on common relevant topics, not just with ones that repeat your point verbatim.

> it repeats a claim that's been both debunked before

Irrelevant. The fact that somebody somewhere said "nah, it's not so" means nothing. For mostly everything you can find "debunking" if you look hard enough. That doesn't mean that automatically the side you're on wins because there are people on internet that agree with you (oh no, surely it does mean that?)

> is pretty scientifically inaccurate about people with autism/Asperger's syndrome.

I imagine you are speaking as a seasoned researcher on the topic, far outmatching the original author, a mere psychology professor. I respect your credentials on this, but regret to inform you this is also irrelevant - it is not a scientific paper, and neither original author not the tweet author was not asking for a scientific peer review. If anybody that ever recommended scientifically iffy article on twitter would be banned, we'd have nobody unbanned left. The fact is the attack had nothing to do with scientific merits of the article (which nobody even discussed) and everything to do with the outrageous crime of sacrilege by questioning the sanctity of the CoC.

Re: Effective immediately I am stepping down from the Nodejs TSC

#128

Post by rkeene2 »

ebola1717 wrote: post #90
peoplewindow wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not judge merit directly, yourself? As far as I can tell there is no merit to the complaints. If 4 members stepped down, that suggests Node TSC has a serious problem with people who are wildly extreme. Here's what appears to have happened based on the original complaint: 1. This guy tweets an article that discusses campus speech codes, university politics and so on. It doesn't attack anyone and is a fairly long-w…

That was an unconvincing post, and I'm not going to waste my time explaining why.

I found the post informative ("convincing", to use your word since there seems to be nothing in the post that attempts to convince but merely inform) and I see nothing in your response that addresses any of the points raised.

Perhaps instead of telling us only that your time is more valuable than engaging in discourse on the topic if you did provide more information then we could see new sides and facets of this information that, from what I can tell, you are alleging are missing.

Re: Effective immediately I am stepping down from the Nodejs TSC

#129

Post by ebola1717 »

rkeene2 wrote: post #128
ebola1717 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was an unconvincing post, and I'm not going to waste my time explaining why.

I found the post informative ("convincing", to use your word since there seems to be nothing in the post that attempts to convince but merely inform) and I see nothing in your response that addresses any of the points raised. Perhaps instead of telling us only that your time is more valuable than engaging in discourse on the topic if you did provide more information then we could see new sides and facets of this info…

I've been debating on the internet since I was 13 - I know when someone is worth arguing with, and when they refuse to see the structural issues in play.

Re: Effective immediately I am stepping down from the Nodejs TSC

#130

Post by curtisblaine »

root_axis wrote: post #83
curtisblaine wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Six of them voted for no sanctions, though. And two abstained. Who lost the vote resigned, which is a way to say "we couldn't expel you by voting, now we're trying to create as much drama as possible because we just can't accept the decision, even if voted democratically by our peers"

> now we're trying to create as much drama as possible because we just can't accept the decision, even if voted democratically by our peers The purpose of the vote was to determine if any action should be taken, the vote occurred and its outcome was respected. If individuals want to resign because they disagree with the outcome of the vote, they are clearly entitled to do so and it does not violate the spirit of demo…

> which allows it to continue unencumbered by the dissenters strongly held viewpoints.

I hope it does! :)

Post reply on HN