Faker.js is now a community controlled project
1–10 of 357 posts
Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project
#2I should’ve put this at the top of the update itself, but the Twitter account is the main form of comms from the team.
Thanks everyone.
Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project
#3Huge thanks for taking this over and handling a delicate situation as cleanly as possible.
Also, kudos for emphasizing the real originator of the package:
> Faker was first implemented in Perl in 2004 by Jason Kohles
Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project
#4> After the funds were moved we were invited to become admins of the Faker collective. This meant that we retained the existing sponsors of the Faker collective who were paying for the continued maintenance of the project.
I'm sorry but this feels wrong. The existing sponsors should have their subscriptions cancelled, instead of going to a new organization automatically.
Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project
#5> After the funds were moved we were invited to become admins of the Faker collective. This meant that we retained the existing sponsors of the Faker collective who were paying for the continued maintenance of the project. I'm sorry but this feels wrong. The existing sponsors should have their subscriptions cancelled, instead of going to a new organization automatically.
Only sponsorships tied to the project itself will continue to be tied to the project. This move was sponsored by the co-maintainers of the project.
Any sponsorships tied to marak's personal GitHub account were not changed, of course.
This is also consistent with the original terms:
> During the conversation with Ben, he went over the terms and conditions of the Open Collective with me.
> Ben said that simply, "The funding is attached to the project, not the current maintainer."
Full details: https://github.com/faker-js/faker/discussions/56#discussionc...
Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project
#6You can spin it however you like, but renaming the real one "fakerjs-legacy" and appropriating all sponsors is a scumbag move.
Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project
#7> After the funds were moved we were invited to become admins of the Faker collective. This meant that we retained the existing sponsors of the Faker collective who were paying for the continued maintenance of the project. I'm sorry but this feels wrong. The existing sponsors should have their subscriptions cancelled, instead of going to a new organization automatically.
Ask for forgiveness not permission.
Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project
#8> After the funds were moved we were invited to become admins of the Faker collective. This meant that we retained the existing sponsors of the Faker collective who were paying for the continued maintenance of the project. I'm sorry but this feels wrong. The existing sponsors should have their subscriptions cancelled, instead of going to a new organization automatically.
No they shouldn’t, they supported the project - not the crazed author.
Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project
#9You can spin it however you like, but renaming the real one "fakerjs-legacy" and appropriating all sponsors is a scumbag move.
I assume nobody in their right would sponsor the orginal author who instead of maintaining the project distributes malware and builds bombs.
Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project
#10It doesn't feel like there was enough criticism against GitHub for their decision to ban the developer of faker/colors. This was his own corner of the internet for him to publish his own personal projects.
I understand the decision for npm to take ownership of his packages, because npm is a community package repository owned by, and for, the community. All community package repositories have some sort of policy for package takeovers.
But GitHub claims to be your home for public hosting of your own personal code. What GitHub policy did he violate? The really outrageous thing is that the developer going "rogue" was actually him expressing his freedom of speech, again on his own personal GitHub account, in his own personal (not organization) repositories. He spoke about his thoughts about open source, businesses, and economics. Defending this type of political speech is especially important and GitHub banning his account and censoring this type of speech(whether you agree with it or not) is especially shameful.