Ben Noordhuis's Departure • Hacker News Board

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#121

Post by RyanZAG » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:46 AM UTC

selmnoo wrote: post #7

For those who don't know what's going on: Joyent made a blogpost calling Ben, (one of _THE_ most prolific contributors to nodjs), an asshole ( http://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun ) and said they'd fire him if he'd been working for them, because he refused to take a commit making language in some part of the code gender-neutral. Here's Ben's last response to the whole ordeal: https://github.com/joyent/li…

Just a note:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nodejs/mqSf47HhmyY/m8QpZE9mJ...

These are the guys in control of nodejs. They appear to be both immature and highly profit driven with far more interest in themselves than the platform. If this isn't a red flag for investing time in nodejs, I don't know what is.

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#122

Post by malandrew » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:52 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #120

malandrew wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a trivial change. It didn't help me nor anyone else understand the code being commented on any better, nor did it change any executable code. That's about as close to the definition of a trivial[0] change that I can think of. Pronoun choice is of little value of importance since this is a open source project, not a college gender studies class. If you think that's not trivial, then take it somewhere where it's…

I understand you believe it was trivial. Maybe Ben Noordhuis still does too. Others disagree. Using power to force one's own view because one can is a problematic behavior in open source projects. It needlessly costs contributors. And respect.

Please explain to me what view you think Ben was forcing upon the community, because I do not think the view you and others nerd-raging here is aligned with reality.

Ben was forcing the view that the commit policy had not been followed, which is a view that the rest of the community agrees with. This all got blown out of control when someone misinterpreted Ben's actions and started a bikeshedding tempest in a teacup instead of figuring out why Ben considered it a trivial change.

I don't know about you, but everyone who went off the deep end in that thread basically joined a lynch mob based on misunderstanding and failure to seek clarification for the commit reversion. The burden was on those who were upset to seek clarification instead of brandishing pitchforks and torches.

I don't think anyone who has contributed to the NodeJS repo joined because they wanted to bikeshed over gender issues. I'd be surprised if anyone (other than the author of the commit that started all this) joined to commit with that as a primary intent (or secondary, tertiary, etc.).

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#123

Post by IsaacSchlueter » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:53 AM UTC

cliftonk wrote: post #6

Joyent's decision to publicly shame one of Node's largest contributors with a passive-aggressive blog post instead of approaching him privately speaks volumes about their maturity.

How do you know that no one approached him privately?

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#124

Post by IsaacSchlueter » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:53 AM UTC

RyanZAG wrote: post #121

selmnoo wrote: post #7

For those who don't know what's going on: Joyent made a blogpost calling Ben, (one of _THE_ most prolific contributors to nodjs), an asshole ( http://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun ) and said they'd fire him if he'd been working for them, because he refused to take a commit making language in some part of the code gender-neutral. Here's Ben's last response to the whole ordeal: https://github.com/joyent/li…

Just a note: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nodejs/mqSf47HhmyY/m8QpZE9mJ... These are the guys in control of nodejs. They appear to be both immature and highly profit driven with far more interest in themselves than the platform. If this isn't a red flag for investing time in nodejs, I don't know what is.

You say "profit driven" like it's a bad thing.

I thought this was a forum about startups.

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#125

Post by aktau » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:55 AM UTC

md224 wrote: post #95

abcd_f wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ben is not a native English speaker, so as stated by Ben, he didn't realize it was a big deal. But is it an actually big deal for native speakers? I realize that some people think it's important, but then some people also think that you can't swear in comments and can't use "retard" as a summary opinion about someone else. In live, non-corporate language would any native speaker in fact routinely use "they" instead…

If you're male (or anyone else reading this), consider this cognitive frame: instead of thinking about "they" vs. "he", ask yourself if you would prefer "they" over "she". Do you feel any sort of preference for one over the other? (Honestly don't know what your answer will be, I just think it's a good way to approach the issue.) Also: not passing any judgement on Ben's actions here, just talking about the gender poli…

I routinely read "she" in documentation to refer to the developer/user. I notice it the first time it appears in a text and then I don't anymore, it doesn't bother me in the least.

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#126

Post by htp » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:58 AM UTC

This is the kind of thing that helps me understand why people don’t want to contribute to open source:

You can get flamed just for making code public [1]. Contributing to someone else’s project and missing the bar for quality is one thing, but this person _shared some potentially useful code_ and several Internet-famous people took a dump on her project. Wrapping your head around software is already hard enough without having to worry about getting trolled or potentially destroying future opportunities.

Or the case we have here: a couple of actions get taken out of context and have meaning read into them where there wasn’t any, and now people think you’re a misogynist.

Why contribute and deal with all of that potential noise, when you can do _just about anything else_ and not have to worry?

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5106767

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#127

Post by IsaacSchlueter » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:58 AM UTC

bowlofpetunias wrote: post #62

Although Ben could have handled this better, it's quite obvious that this is just a strategically motivated witch hunt by Joyent. Their actions are vicious and completely out of proportion. Sidenote: In Ben's native language, using gender neutral pronouns is considerably more contrived and artificial, and therefor not a regular subject of debate when it comes to gender equality.

Yep. Joyent's new corporate strategy: hunting witches. Nailed it.

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#128

Post by djur » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:59 AM UTC

jacalata wrote: post #56

goldenkey wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy crap, what a read. You have to wonder... What feminist muff is he puffing? I can't stand white knighting especially when it befalls other men in armor. Ben, you've got my sympathies and support, sorry you have to hear this immature politico-feminist-fascluckery from Joyent

I can't stand white knighting especially when it befalls other men in armor what does that even mean?

Personally, I'm wondering about "fascluckery".

I think Ben is being poorly served by his defenders, who are gleefully bringing in their MRA hobbyhorses.

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#129

Post by RyanZAG » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:59 AM UTC

IsaacSchlueter wrote: post #124

RyanZAG wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a note: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nodejs/mqSf47HhmyY/m8QpZE9mJ... These are the guys in control of nodejs. They appear to be both immature and highly profit driven with far more interest in themselves than the platform. If this isn't a red flag for investing time in nodejs, I don't know what is.

You say "profit driven" like it's a bad thing. I thought this was a forum about startups.

It's a good thing for the startup, sure. But it's definitely a very bad thing for a third party choosing to use nodejs as a critical part of their infrastructure. You guys might take nodejs off on a direction that is beneficial to you and not to me, and I'm not in a position to fork the project myself if that happens.

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#130

Post by aktau » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:59 AM UTC

Zikes wrote: post #51

sneak wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. It references rape, but is not synonymous. Its current definition is roughly synonymous with "unreasonably upset".

I see, I've suggested a very simple change to a single word of your comment which would make it more inclusive to the community, but you have refused to change it and instead taken a stand of principle. I now have the choice of respecting your decision, or pressing the big red button to incite an internet mob upon you and score one for radical feminism. I'll let you know my decision shortly.

I think it's a bit ironical that you seem to be acting "butthurt", threatening with internet mobs and such (and the gloomy prospects of someone losing their job if they don't bow down to your pressure).