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

Rod Vagg's statement on the request to be removed from the Node.js CTC

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 186 posts

Re: Rod Vagg's statement on the request to be removed from the Node.js CTC

#21

Post by mayank »

chis wrote: post #20

It's insane that we might reach a point where people install different branches of a project based on their political leanings... I think the main takeaway here is that a Code of Conduct, while valuable, has to be treated carefully. A lot of these projects agreed to a Code of Conduct just to appease a certain faction of their devs, and are now seeing that it can be used against them.

There is absolutely no evidence that this fork will gain traction, because it contributes nothing new technically, so it's unlikely we'll reach the point you mention.

Re: Rod Vagg's statement on the request to be removed from the Node.js CTC

#23

Post by andrewguenther »

> I have submitted myself to our Code of Conduct as a participant in this project. I have been involved in the application of our Code of Conduct. But I do not accept it as a sacred text that is above critique or even discussion.

This, to me, is one of the most important lines of his response. I feel like critiques of CoCs and other related documents and processes coming from a white male are often interpreted as hostile. I would consider myself an ally, but I am afraid to weigh in on these kinds of discussions because differing opinions are so often manipulated into "hate" and "toxicity."

Re: Rod Vagg's statement on the request to be removed from the Node.js CTC

#24

Post by jamescostian »

wolco wrote: post #19
jamescostian wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the snark of this comment may push it into obscurity by those who hate snarky comments, I totally agree. I was surprised we could even still have Node.js after the huge Node.js vs io.js debacle. I think all of these arguments are about important issues, but they also can give a very negative impression to outsiders (not to mention how insiders aware of all the facts may feel). That said, I am at least happy to…

The Node.js vs io.js fork changed the way many looked at node and probably changed its growth axis. This is not the same and highlights why a code of conduct focusing on moral issues is not always the best path for a project/language.

Perhaps this is because my coffee rush ended and I'm currently in the post-coffee slump, but I don't follow what you're saying. Are you saying this event will/has not change(d) the way many looked at node as well as perhaps its growth axis? Also, when you mention these changes, I'm honestly not familiar with the stats - did they improve or decline? I also don't follow your second paragraph, but that could be simply because I missed what you were saying in your first

Re: Rod Vagg's statement on the request to be removed from the Node.js CTC

#25

Post by adamrezich »

andrewguenther wrote: post #23

> I have submitted myself to our Code of Conduct as a participant in this project. I have been involved in the application of our Code of Conduct. But I do not accept it as a sacred text that is above critique or even discussion. This, to me, is one of the most important lines of his response. I feel like critiques of CoCs and other related documents and processes coming from a white male are often interpreted as hos…

> I feel like critiques of CoCs and other related documents and processes coming from a white male are often interpreted as hostile.

At what point do we stop ignoring this inconvenient truth?

Re: Rod Vagg's statement on the request to be removed from the Node.js CTC

#26

Post by GenericsMotors »

mayank wrote: post #21
chis wrote: post #20

It's insane that we might reach a point where people install different branches of a project based on their political leanings... I think the main takeaway here is that a Code of Conduct, while valuable, has to be treated carefully. A lot of these projects agreed to a Code of Conduct just to appease a certain faction of their devs, and are now seeing that it can be used against them.

There is absolutely no evidence that this fork will gain traction, because it contributes nothing new technically, so it's unlikely we'll reach the point you mention.

But it has a PR open to bolster its "VALUES.md" file, as well as an issue for the most important subject of a logo.

There is no doubt that this fork is future of server-side JS.

Re: Rod Vagg's statement on the request to be removed from the Node.js CTC

#27

Post by kbenson »

Rjevski wrote: post #18

Does anyone have a TLDR about this story? I haven't had the time to follow all the drama.

Just reading through his response takes quite a while, and at the end you're left either accepting his interpretation and explanation, or you need to probably wade through some multiple of that content in disparate other sources to get the other side.

Given the types of complaints and their subjective nature in some instances, I imagine you're probably looking at something close to 4-5 hours at least to get enough context to form an objective opinion of your own on this situation if you aren't coming into it with that background knowledge already. I'm not willing to invest that.

Re: Rod Vagg's statement on the request to be removed from the Node.js CTC

#28

Post by chis »

mayank wrote: post #21
chis wrote: post #20

It's insane that we might reach a point where people install different branches of a project based on their political leanings... I think the main takeaway here is that a Code of Conduct, while valuable, has to be treated carefully. A lot of these projects agreed to a Code of Conduct just to appease a certain faction of their devs, and are now seeing that it can be used against them.

There is absolutely no evidence that this fork will gain traction, because it contributes nothing new technically, so it's unlikely we'll reach the point you mention.

I'm not an expert, but it seems within the realm of possibility. Despite what hackernews thinks, the forkers have a somewhat reasonable argument, in that Vagg did violate the Code of Conduct (because it is extreme), and the committee voted to ignore it (because he's a valuable contributor). Morality aside, it calls the system into question if someone can violate established rules and get away with it because the judges disagree with the rules.

Also, several members of their ruling committee left to make the fork. So it's not just a bunch of randoms, and they might be able to make some meaningful progress on their own.

Re: Rod Vagg's statement on the request to be removed from the Node.js CTC

#29

Post by temp-dude-87844 »

thwd wrote: post #6

Shame how such a cool project as node.js can drown in political fingerpointing. The only measurement that counts (in my opinion) is cold hard code contributions.

People who choose to contribute under their real names or easily cross-referencible pseudonyms are taking a calculated risk. People who participate in political structures like the TSC -- which despite its name is a political, not a technical effort -- incur risks that are intrinsic to being in a high-profile leadership role.

"Cold hard code" contributions are an option available to anyone who feels comfortable with donating their labor under an opaque pseudonym. It's a good way to proactively shield oneself from disputes of this nature. It's a natural continuation of the quip "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" -- except if you tell everyone you're a dog. Plenty of people contribute to collaborative projects solely on the merit of their contributions, even as many projects have come to follow the trend of considering other factors as well [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14539465

Re: Rod Vagg's statement on the request to be removed from the Node.js CTC

#30

Post by adamrezich »

geofft wrote: post #14

A bit of a thought experiment for myself: suppose that Rod were as terrible as the worst possible claims made against him. (I am confident he's not.) Suppose he were actively, consciously hoping to deceive and harm the Node community. (I am also confident he's not.) What sort of statement would he write? How much would it look like this one?

Once somebody has decided someone else's guilt, all following stimuli is interpreted through the lens of confirmation bias by default—and it takes an uncommonly truth-seeking mind to see past it. No matter how "heartfelt" or "thoughtful" a written or verbal apology is, it won't change any minds that've already been made up.

This has been happening more and more recently, both online and in geopolitics.

Post reply on HN