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

51–60 of 186 posts

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

#51

Post by geofft »

adamrezich wrote: post #30
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.

Eh, my personal reaction was that I was significantly more sympathetic to him after reading his writeup, so I was wondering if that's actually evidence-based or just emotion-based.

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

#52

Post by tomcam »

jamescostian wrote: post #5
par wrote: post #2

Node community is going to argue its way into obscurity.

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…

Completely agreed, although the parent's post does not appear to be snark to me. I believe it is sincere, and I fear exactly the same outcome.

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

#53

Post by flanbiscuit »

AlexeyBrin wrote: post #44
wakeywakeywakey wrote: post #4

Having reviewed the relevant tweets/GitHub issues/blog posts, I feel most of the noise is generated by people who make it their mission to find things about which to be outraged. The NodeJS brand has the momentum necessary to build great things. If they squander it by cry-wolf-forking every time there is an internal disagreement, another JS engine (e.g. Chakra) will take the helm.

> The NodeJS brand has the momentum necessary to build great things. If they squander it by cry-wolf-forking every time there is an internal disagreement, another JS engine (e.g. Chakra) will take the helm. Node.js is not an engine, Node.js uses the V8 engine (same engine that powers the Chrome browser). Technically you could use Node.js with the Chakra engine or other JavaScript engines.

Didn't Microsoft do that? Created a version of Node using Chakra as proof of concept

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

#55

Post by GenericsMotors »

geofft wrote: post #51
adamrezich wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eh, my personal reaction was that I was significantly more sympathetic to him after reading his writeup, so I was wondering if that's actually evidence-based or just emotion-based.

Please follow up on what was the supposed evidence against him and you will see his response was reasonable.

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

#56

Post by reaperducer »

chis wrote: post #28
mayank wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 judg…

> it calls the system into question if someone can violate established rules and get away with it because the judges disagree with the rules.

Welcome to adulthood, corporate life, and the real world. It's not fair. It's not designed to be fair. It's not intended to be fair. It's never been fair. You just pull up your big boy pants and deal with it.

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

#57

Post by BinaryIdiot »

orless wrote: post #50

What I'm completely missing in this discussion of Code of Conduct violation is a specific list of which actions violated which clauses in this Code of Conduct. I see a list of complaints, but for an outsider it is really hard to follow why these actions are considered to be CoC violations. Take this, for instance: "In [moderation repository discussion], Rod’s first action was to apologize to a contributor who had bee…

This was how I viewed it as well. Especially if what Rod said about not being notified about ANY of these items is true.

This just appears someone compiled a list of things Rod screwed up, most of which he seemed to own and tried to fix. Maybe my impression is wrong but it just comes off as awful.

I tried getting the entire story. I tried reading through the complaints, hunting down tweets and even reading Rod's side. But I eventually had to give it; it was going to take me hours to gain a small amount of context (some appears to be private / offline so I don't see a way to gain all of the necessary context to judge this situation).

I get the feeling people are going to take their biases, one way or another, and run with what their side is because I don't see a quick way of wading through all of this.

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

#58

Post by BinaryIdiot »

flanbiscuit wrote: post #53
AlexeyBrin wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The NodeJS brand has the momentum necessary to build great things. If they squander it by cry-wolf-forking every time there is an internal disagreement, another JS engine (e.g. Chakra) will take the helm. Node.js is not an engine, Node.js uses the V8 engine (same engine that powers the Chrome browser). Technically you could use Node.js with the Chakra engine or other JavaScript engines.

Didn't Microsoft do that? Created a version of Node using Chakra as proof of concept

No, Microsoft modified node to allow drop in replacement of the JavaScript engine and then provided a Chakra backed version of node. It actually seemed to work pretty well and was pretty well received by the community. I believe others were attempting to do the same with the Firefox JS engine (SpiderMonkey? I can't remember what it's called) using the same base of work Microsoft created.

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

#59

Post by sulam »

orless wrote: post #50

What I'm completely missing in this discussion of Code of Conduct violation is a specific list of which actions violated which clauses in this Code of Conduct. I see a list of complaints, but for an outsider it is really hard to follow why these actions are considered to be CoC violations. Take this, for instance: "In [moderation repository discussion], Rod’s first action was to apologize to a contributor who had bee…

This as least is something I can understand (and it seems he understands it too, as he apologized for it). When you're not involved in a discussion, are in a leadership position, and apologize to someone for the outcome of the discussion, you are undercutting the authority of the people involved in that discussion, the decision they made, and the entire organizational process that produced the decision.

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

#60

Post by bjt2n3904 »

orless wrote: post #50

What I'm completely missing in this discussion of Code of Conduct violation is a specific list of which actions violated which clauses in this Code of Conduct. I see a list of complaints, but for an outsider it is really hard to follow why these actions are considered to be CoC violations. Take this, for instance: "In [moderation repository discussion], Rod’s first action was to apologize to a contributor who had bee…

Secret, anonymous accusations? Check.

Instructions to not discuss this with anyone? Check.

Little to no evidence? Check.

No opportunity to provide a response? Check.

Witch hunt. But don't worry, if he doesn't float, we'll pardon him posthumously.

Post reply on HN