Ben Noordhuis's Departure • Hacker News Board

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#211

Post by malandrew » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 2:28 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #205

malandrew wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"he could have easily said that rather than closing the pull request with a discouraging comment" There are 129 open issues[0] and 25 open pull requests[1] for libuv right now on Github. That one didn't deserve his extremely valuable time that is better spent on considering contributions that matter, like the the 25 open pull requests. You don't have a right to Ben's time and attention. He gives to the project out of…

That I don't have a right to Ben's time and attention is true, but irrelevant. I'm not demanding anything of him. I do have the right to criticize him for his public actions, which is what I'm doing. I think he behaved poorly in relation to two topics I care about: leading open source projects, and ending sexism. He doesn't owe me an explanation, but I would read it with interest. I also think people on the project h…

   "I think he behaved poorly in relation to two topics I care 
   about: leading open source projects, and ending sexism."

I would think that the best way to do that is to lead by example by leading and open source project and combatting sexism in the project(s) you lead instead of knocking down my strawmen.

If you lead an open source project and fight to end sexism, then great. If not, you are in no position to criticize Ben.

   "I also think people [who have contributed to] the project have 
   a right to criticize him. [Everyone else can GTFO]. He does owe 
   them an explanation; any action taken in the project's name is 
   subject to review by the project community."

FTFY. This entire ordeal would have been a non-issue if you could mute non-contributors.

My true agenda? Establishing a culture where non-contributors don't waste the time of contributors with their bikeshedding.

What excludes someone from the category of non-contributor? They submit test cases. They clarify documentation to make it clearer how to use the code or understand the algorithms in the code. They implement features. They participate in design discussions. They contribute use cases and elaborate on why those use cases are important. They fix bugs in the open source code instead of simply hacking around it in their own code. They write blog posts on how to use the open source code. They publish examples of the open source code in use. They give talks on how to use the open-source code.

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#212

Post by malandrew » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 2:29 AM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #210

malandrew wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Also, you can't blame the shitstorm on the person submitting the pull request." Why not? You can't unilaterally decide that that person cannot be to blame here. They could have made a contribution of utility (bugfix or feature for example) and included that minor comment change within that pull request, instead of using a pull request as their own personal soapbox. Github issues and pull requests are not forums for…

Or as an alternative, he could have privately emailed an existing contributor, discussed the change, and got support. If it had come from Isaac or Bert to start with, it would have sailed through without objection. I really feel like a pull request was the wrong vehicle for what the original submitter was trying to accomplish.

This.

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#213

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 2:33 AM UTC

GalacticDomin8r wrote: post #208

sneak wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know how much truth there is to that, but as a general spectator I feel like wanting to remark that Bryan Cantrill only fanned the fire here in all of this. Pretty much every participating party in this whole thing came out looking like a loser, Joycent, Strongloop, the whole nodejs scene. Here's hoping Ben now finds a workplace that appreciates him for his talents and respects him as a person. If he's butt…

> I feel like wanting to remark that Bryan Cantrill only fanned the fire here in all of this. You've expressed a thought, not an emotion. Please use "think" instead of "feel". http://www.wildmind.org/applied/depression/distinguishing-th...

[deleted]

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#214

Post by malandrew » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 2:42 AM UTC

chc wrote: post #183

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likewise... you should consider that just because something is important to you doesn't mean it has to be important to someone else. It does go both ways.

Indeed, and I am not asking malandrew to act like this is important to him. My point is that we should not oppose it, not that you personally need to take action of some sort. In other words, I'm fine if you don't want to go through and revise your docs to be more gender-neutral — it would be nice, but you should spend your time on what's near and dear to you. But to say that such a change "shouldn't be in any projec…

I totally respect that this is an issue that is important to people. I'm not opposed to these changes in the docs. I'm opposed to these being the only changes in the pull requests. You want to crusade on this agenda? Earn it. Submit a non-trivial pull request with a bugfix or feature and bundle these changes that matter to you in with them.

This is a perfect example of a group being it's own worst enemy. Alex Gaynor is not the group. The community is the group. If this matters to Alex then he should have bundled it with something that matters to the community like a pull request with changes of utility like a bugfix or feature.

If and only if Alex had contributed something of universal value to the community in the pull request and was still called out by people for that comment change in the pull request would he actually be correct in his accusation of misogyny and gender discrimination. Instead he led an unjustified lynch mob against someone who has contributed far more than him to libuv.

I'm staunchly opposed to the use of pull requests as a soapbox and unjustly crucifying someone who did not deserve it, and judging by the upvotes, I know I'm not alone in this opposition and support of an unjustly persecuted person.

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#215

Post by malandrew » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 2:50 AM UTC

jacalata wrote: post #172

malandrew wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're allowed to be ignorant of the politically correct gender issues surrounding grammatical usage in a codebase. To do otherwise is to bikeshed. On the internet no one knows you're a dog. 99% of the time I have no idea if the person I'm talking to on Github is a man, woman or has a different gender identity, nor do I care. It'd simply doesn't matter. [0] All that original commit did is set off a giant clust…

Everyone is allowed to be ignorant, the problem is people who are not ignorant but simply dismiss issues as "unimportant" because they are unaffected. It is not the original committers fault that you and so many other people don't care about (or in some cases object to) gender neutral language, and bikeshedding is best stopped not by leaving the bikeshed unpainted but by you and others who fjnd it unimportant shuttin…

I'm not bikeshedding on the topic of gender. I couldn't care less about that topic. That's not my battle[0], which is why I keep focusing on other aspects of all this that are important to libuv and open-source. I'm defending an unjustly persecuted person of great value to the community and the antisocial open source behavior of using pull requests as a soap box. If debating those two issues are bikeshedding, then I'm happy to bikeshed about them.

[0] but people seem to think it is and that I'm opposed. I don't know what I've said to contribute to that illusion.

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#216

Post by jacalata » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 2:51 AM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #214

chc wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and I am not asking malandrew to act like this is important to him. My point is that we should not oppose it, not that you personally need to take action of some sort. In other words, I'm fine if you don't want to go through and revise your docs to be more gender-neutral — it would be nice, but you should spend your time on what's near and dear to you. But to say that such a change "shouldn't be in any projec…

I totally respect that this is an issue that is important to people. I'm not opposed to these changes in the docs. I'm opposed to these being the only changes in the pull requests. You want to crusade on this agenda? Earn it. Submit a non-trivial pull request with a bugfix or feature and bundle these changes that matter to you in with them. This is a perfect example of a group being it's own worst enemy. Alex Gaynor…

Do you feel that way about doc changes in general?

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#217

Post by Myrmornis » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 2:57 AM UTC

newman314 wrote: post #141

Myrmornis wrote: post #83

Gender inequality is the world's greatest human rights challenge, but Ben Noordhuis is not the problem. This was idiotic politically correct micromanaging that deserved the response initially given to the PR: "not interested in trivial changes like that".

Don't you think genocide or human trafficking trumps that?

You might be right, but the reason I tend to think it's gender inequality is, obviously, because every person has a 50% chance of being affected. And probably every woman on the planet is affected to some degree. Whereas the pan-global, per-person probability of being affected by genocide or human trafficking is extremely small in comparison. My guess is that the average amount of suffering per person ends up being much higher for gender inequality. I.e. for genocide it's a sum over a few million people of a very large amount of suffering each, whereas for gender inequality it is a sum over say 40% of the world's population of smaller amounts of suffering each, plus a sum over, say, 10% of the world's population of a large amount of suffering (e.g. women who are denied access to education, denied personal freedom of movement outside their homes, etc).

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#218

Post by malandrew » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 3:16 AM UTC

jacalata wrote: post #216

malandrew wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally respect that this is an issue that is important to people. I'm not opposed to these changes in the docs. I'm opposed to these being the only changes in the pull requests. You want to crusade on this agenda? Earn it. Submit a non-trivial pull request with a bugfix or feature and bundle these changes that matter to you in with them. This is a perfect example of a group being it's own worst enemy. Alex Gaynor…

Do you feel that way about doc changes in general?

If the doc change is trivial, yes. If it's a significant change in the meaning of the text and how it relates to the code it accompanies, then it should be a separate pull request.

A good litmus test is, "Is there value to the community in having this as a separate pull request when someone is browsing the commit history?"

In other words, if this only matters to me and is part of my own crusade (but one that the larger community is likely to actively object to), then I should keep it to myself.

The change in question here could have been part of a larger commit of changes to documentation and comments, where the overwhelming majority of changes would be considered valuable by the majority of the community.

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#219

Post by drderidder » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 5:05 AM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #196

drderidder wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Ryan originally announced the transition to Joyent, someone asked if node would be moved to Joyent's github repo. Isaac replied: "I hope not". But now he asserts that Joyent owns node, and considers it a "cash cow".

Who owns the trademark?

Joyend. I mean Joyent.

Re: Ben Noordhuis's Departure

#220

Post by ceol » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 8:52 AM UTC

djur wrote: post #128

jacalata wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

HN has been invaded by MRAs from a certain subreddit ever since the "dongle" issue a few months ago. They very quickly latched on to this community because they realized all they had to do was make their comment verbose and it would appeal to the affluent, college-aged men here.

Apparently they stuck around.