5 ms·

So he dared to be in favour of anti-CoC article in one of his Twitter posts and thus unleashed the SJW brigade? What an heinous crime.

geofft 9y ago
I think that's an uncharitable reading. It's one thing to be anti-CoC. It's another thing to be anti-CoC when you're on a committee whose job is to maintain and enforce the CoC. There's nothing dishonorable about saying "I don't think I agree with the goals of the job that I am doing, so I will let someone else do it," but he didn't do that. It's sort of like going to work for customs while being a strong believer in open and unrestricted borders, apologizing to people about the existence of customs and waving them through, and then complaining about "the alt-right brigade" when people ask if you're actually the right person for the job.
- ebola1717 9y ago
  Yeah, the original list of grievances seemed pretty straightforward and damning. It's not unlike the current US administration, with a climate denier heading the Energy dept, a school privatization advocate heading the Education department, etc.
- cosmiccartel 9y ago
  It looks like the responsibilities of the TSC involve much more than enforcing a code of conduct. If you want a simile for this situation, I'd say it's more like a police officer sharing an article that's in favor of marijuana legalization, and being upset when his coworkers attack him over it.
  - LyndsySimon 9y ago
    > I'd say it's more like a police officer sharing an article that's in favor of marijuana legalization, and being upset when his coworkers attack him over it. ... but sharing such an article would not be wrong ... Is the disconnect really this large between ideologies?
    - geofft 9y ago
      Hm, I interpreted 'cosmiccartel as saying that sharing such an article would be fine, and therefore that a more appropriate analogy would lead to the opposite of my conclusion. (And I upvoted that reply because I felt it contributed to the conversation usefully and was a meaningful rebuttal.) That said, I still think there are scenarios where sharing such an article would be, although not wrong in a moral sense, certainly something that would displease your coworkers and harm your group's effectiveness: imagine that a large number of your coworkers thought that marijuana was a serious problem in their society and had made it one of your team's priorities to eliminate marijuana from the community. If your coworkers don't believe that you'll have their back, or if they worry that you'll undermine them if they leave a prisoner with you or something, it's entirely reasonable for them to be unhappy at you, whether or not they're "right". And it's entirely predictable that a more fruitful way to achieve your goal would be to leave the department and argue your case through political means, instead of remaining.
- rocqua 9y ago
  That analogy is somewhat wrong. A simple reading makes it boil down to a simple question. If you disagree with how a system implements its goals, do you change that system from within or from without? Noting that sometimes, 'improving from within' vs 'sabotage' is a matter of perspective. You can disagree with rules and still enforce them. In cases where judgement calls need to be made, you then use your own judgement. This is only unreasonable when the rules are perfect, or judgement calls are made when the rules are clear.
- curtisblaine 9y ago
  Wait, he's a member of the Technical Steering Committee, which is a group "of key Collaborators who have demonstrated both technical expertise critical to the ongoing maintenance and evolution of the project and a long term commitment to driving the project and community forward"[1], not "a committee whose job is to maintain and enforce the CoC", as you put it. It's not inconceivable that an member of such a group could be thinking that "the best way of driving the project and community forward" is not having a CoC at all, or having one different than the current one (like the Linux one, for example). [1](https://nodejs.org/en/foundation/tsc/ https://nodejs.org/en/foundation/tsc/)
  - geofft 9y ago
    The committee has lots of jobs, yes. One of them is the maintaining and enforcing the Code of Conduct: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md I think it's totally fine for a member of the group to disagree privately with the decided goals of the group, whether this is "CoCs are good" or "this promises spec is good" or whatever, and recuse themselves from that goal and contribute productively to other goals. But that's different from actively undermining the group's decision, which is (I think) what is happening here.
    - curtisblaine 9y ago
      Which is a clause written on the CoC itself. The CoC must be respected because the CoC says so. Anyone who has doubts about the CoC, must be expelled from the TSC, because it's written on the CoC. This ensures that the CoC can't be touched ever. A good example of catch-22. They shouldn't have approved it in the first place.
      - ebola1717 9y ago
        > The CoC must be respected because the CoC says so. That's... how laws and rules work...
        9y ago
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  From the archived details it looks like the issue was less posting anti-CoC material (though that was part of it) than putting personal public advocacy outside of project processes ahead of engagement with project processes and representing the project more generally. That's certainly something that a member of the community is generally free to do, but it's, in pretty much any organization regardless of domain or left-right position on the ideological spectrum, something that is viewed as inconsistent with membership in leadership committees except where that membership is an entitlement through, e.g., equity ownership. EDIT: but it's also worth noting that the sanction votes in both proposed sanctions were 60/40 against sanctions, and the final outcome was to work to clarify expectations. (And clarifying expectations seems sensible since it is clear that there were sharp divisions within the community in the expectations here.)
- dvdhnt 9y ago
  I disagree and find your argument convenient. It's like saying that once you're elected to congress, you must vote along party lines no matter your personal convictions because "reasons". We see how well that's working out for America, don't we?
spootnik 9y ago
"It is evidence to others that Node.js may not be serious about its commitment to community and inclusivity. https://twitter.com/nodebotanist/status/887724138516951049 https://twitter.com/nodebotanist/status/887724138516951049 " So one SJW hardcore feminazi has her feelings hurt because she had to read an article by someone who's accused to be a MRA. God forbid someone fight for men's rights but she's allowed to be a hardcore feminist.
jamescostian 9y ago
Yes, and what some call daring, others call scary. One thing many people loved about Node was its openness to everyone. But when a leader of a group shows distaste for CoCs, one can see how that might mean the group's CoC may be threatened. Without CoCs, many people in the Node community wouldn't feel as safe. You may still feel just as safe, and that's great for you. But it's not very hard to understand why people aren't happy. Even if you vehemently despise CoCs, you should still be able to see how a mass exodus, for whatever reason, could be bad for a project's future.
- shkkmo 9y ago
  Have you read the article that was linked to? While I may not agree with the author's solution "use the ADA to eliminate campus speech codes that discriminate against neurominorities", I think he raises a very fair point about speech codes and how they can impact with poor social and people skills. The solution in my mind is not to eliminate CoCs but to start a discussion about how to improve them to mitigate this impact. This appears to be what the original tweet was doing "If you've never considered the potential downsides of codes of conduct, here's a good place to start" Apparently this is not a conversation it is ok to have if you are on a committee that is responsible for managing and enforcing the CoC? It seems to me like these are exactly the people who should be having this conversation.
- root_axis 9y ago
  > Without CoCs, many people in the Node community wouldn't feel as safe. I strongly disagree with this language. I support CoCs because I feel explicitly spelling out consequences for harassment allows for the unambiguous rejection of toxic behavior which creates a welcoming environment for new or otherwise anxious contributors... but nothing about CoC affects an individual's personal safety and using that type of hyperbolic language damages the cause more than it helps.
  - jamescostian 9y ago
    Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that CoCs magically shield and help people. I simply meant that having a CoC and then removing it or ignoring it will make people feel like there aren't any "consequences for harassment" as you put it. When a CoC is removed or ignored, it makes people feel like there isn't any "unambiguous rejection of toxic behavior", so people don't feel like they're in a "welcoming environment for new or otherwise anxious contributors" Your wording is definitely better than mine, but I hope that doesn't detract from my point
dang 9y ago
Would you please not post unsubstantive inflammatory comments, especially on divisive topics, to HN? That's flamebait and we ban accounts that do it repeatedly, regardless of the views they favor/disfavor.

geofft 9y ago

I think that's an uncharitable reading. It's one thing to be anti-CoC. It's another thing to be anti-CoC when you're on a committee whose job is to maintain and enforce the CoC. There's nothing dishonorable about saying "I don't think I agree with the goals of the job that I am doing, so I will let someone else do it," but he didn't do that. It's sort of like going to work for customs while being a strong believer in open and unrestricted borders, apologizing to people about the existence of customs and waving them through, and then complaining about "the alt-right brigade" when people ask if you're actually the right person for the job.

ebola1717 9y ago
Yeah, the original list of grievances seemed pretty straightforward and damning. It's not unlike the current US administration, with a climate denier heading the Energy dept, a school privatization advocate heading the Education department, etc.
cosmiccartel 9y ago
It looks like the responsibilities of the TSC involve much more than enforcing a code of conduct. If you want a simile for this situation, I'd say it's more like a police officer sharing an article that's in favor of marijuana legalization, and being upset when his coworkers attack him over it.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  > I'd say it's more like a police officer sharing an article that's in favor of marijuana legalization, and being upset when his coworkers attack him over it. ... but sharing such an article would not be wrong ... Is the disconnect really this large between ideologies?
  - geofft 9y ago
    Hm, I interpreted 'cosmiccartel as saying that sharing such an article would be fine, and therefore that a more appropriate analogy would lead to the opposite of my conclusion. (And I upvoted that reply because I felt it contributed to the conversation usefully and was a meaningful rebuttal.) That said, I still think there are scenarios where sharing such an article would be, although not wrong in a moral sense, certainly something that would displease your coworkers and harm your group's effectiveness: imagine that a large number of your coworkers thought that marijuana was a serious problem in their society and had made it one of your team's priorities to eliminate marijuana from the community. If your coworkers don't believe that you'll have their back, or if they worry that you'll undermine them if they leave a prisoner with you or something, it's entirely reasonable for them to be unhappy at you, whether or not they're "right". And it's entirely predictable that a more fruitful way to achieve your goal would be to leave the department and argue your case through political means, instead of remaining.
rocqua 9y ago
That analogy is somewhat wrong. A simple reading makes it boil down to a simple question. If you disagree with how a system implements its goals, do you change that system from within or from without? Noting that sometimes, 'improving from within' vs 'sabotage' is a matter of perspective. You can disagree with rules and still enforce them. In cases where judgement calls need to be made, you then use your own judgement. This is only unreasonable when the rules are perfect, or judgement calls are made when the rules are clear.
curtisblaine 9y ago
Wait, he's a member of the Technical Steering Committee, which is a group "of key Collaborators who have demonstrated both technical expertise critical to the ongoing maintenance and evolution of the project and a long term commitment to driving the project and community forward"[1], not "a committee whose job is to maintain and enforce the CoC", as you put it. It's not inconceivable that an member of such a group could be thinking that "the best way of driving the project and community forward" is not having a CoC at all, or having one different than the current one (like the Linux one, for example). [1](https://nodejs.org/en/foundation/tsc/ https://nodejs.org/en/foundation/tsc/)
- geofft 9y ago
  The committee has lots of jobs, yes. One of them is the maintaining and enforcing the Code of Conduct: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md I think it's totally fine for a member of the group to disagree privately with the decided goals of the group, whether this is "CoCs are good" or "this promises spec is good" or whatever, and recuse themselves from that goal and contribute productively to other goals. But that's different from actively undermining the group's decision, which is (I think) what is happening here.
  - curtisblaine 9y ago
    Which is a clause written on the CoC itself. The CoC must be respected because the CoC says so. Anyone who has doubts about the CoC, must be expelled from the TSC, because it's written on the CoC. This ensures that the CoC can't be touched ever. A good example of catch-22. They shouldn't have approved it in the first place.
    - ebola1717 9y ago
      > The CoC must be respected because the CoC says so. That's... how laws and rules work...
      - 9y ago
dragonwriter 9y ago
From the archived details it looks like the issue was less posting anti-CoC material (though that was part of it) than putting personal public advocacy outside of project processes ahead of engagement with project processes and representing the project more generally. That's certainly something that a member of the community is generally free to do, but it's, in pretty much any organization regardless of domain or left-right position on the ideological spectrum, something that is viewed as inconsistent with membership in leadership committees except where that membership is an entitlement through, e.g., equity ownership. EDIT: but it's also worth noting that the sanction votes in both proposed sanctions were 60/40 against sanctions, and the final outcome was to work to clarify expectations. (And clarifying expectations seems sensible since it is clear that there were sharp divisions within the community in the expectations here.)
dvdhnt 9y ago
I disagree and find your argument convenient. It's like saying that once you're elected to congress, you must vote along party lines no matter your personal convictions because "reasons". We see how well that's working out for America, don't we?

spootnik 9y ago

"It is evidence to others that Node.js may not be serious about its commitment to community and inclusivity. https://twitter.com/nodebotanist/status/887724138516951049 https://twitter.com/nodebotanist/status/887724138516951049 " So one SJW hardcore feminazi has her feelings hurt because she had to read an article by someone who's accused to be a MRA. God forbid someone fight for men's rights but she's allowed to be a hardcore feminist.

jamescostian 9y ago

Yes, and what some call daring, others call scary. One thing many people loved about Node was its openness to everyone. But when a leader of a group shows distaste for CoCs, one can see how that might mean the group's CoC may be threatened. Without CoCs, many people in the Node community wouldn't feel as safe. You may still feel just as safe, and that's great for you. But it's not very hard to understand why people aren't happy. Even if you vehemently despise CoCs, you should still be able to see how a mass exodus, for whatever reason, could be bad for a project's future.

shkkmo 9y ago
Have you read the article that was linked to? While I may not agree with the author's solution "use the ADA to eliminate campus speech codes that discriminate against neurominorities", I think he raises a very fair point about speech codes and how they can impact with poor social and people skills. The solution in my mind is not to eliminate CoCs but to start a discussion about how to improve them to mitigate this impact. This appears to be what the original tweet was doing "If you've never considered the potential downsides of codes of conduct, here's a good place to start" Apparently this is not a conversation it is ok to have if you are on a committee that is responsible for managing and enforcing the CoC? It seems to me like these are exactly the people who should be having this conversation.
root_axis 9y ago
> Without CoCs, many people in the Node community wouldn't feel as safe. I strongly disagree with this language. I support CoCs because I feel explicitly spelling out consequences for harassment allows for the unambiguous rejection of toxic behavior which creates a welcoming environment for new or otherwise anxious contributors... but nothing about CoC affects an individual's personal safety and using that type of hyperbolic language damages the cause more than it helps.
- jamescostian 9y ago
  Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that CoCs magically shield and help people. I simply meant that having a CoC and then removing it or ignoring it will make people feel like there aren't any "consequences for harassment" as you put it. When a CoC is removed or ignored, it makes people feel like there isn't any "unambiguous rejection of toxic behavior", so people don't feel like they're in a "welcoming environment for new or otherwise anxious contributors" Your wording is definitely better than mine, but I hope that doesn't detract from my point

dang 9y ago

Would you please not post unsubstantive inflammatory comments, especially on divisive topics, to HN? That's flamebait and we ban accounts that do it repeatedly, regardless of the views they favor/disfavor.