6 ms·

The unredacted details still feel like they're missing something: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310 https://w

The unredacted details still feel like they're missing something: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310 https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.co... "...Rod’s first action was to apologize to a contributor who had been repeatedly moderated. Rod did not discuss the issue with other members of the CTC/TSC first. The result undermined the moderation process as it was occurring" "Rod did not moderate himself when asked by another foundation director and told them he would take it to the board" "Rod tweeted in support of an inflammatory anti-Code-of-Conduct article" Is this really all that there is to it?

fixermark 9y ago
Of everything in there, this one is probably the most problematic. """ His tweeting of screen captures of immature responses suggests pleasure at having upset members of the JavaScript community and others. As a perceived leader, such behavior reflects poorly on the project. https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887790865766268928 https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887790865766268928 """
- shkkmo 9y ago
  I don't really see how this indicates pleasure, that seems to be uncharitably reading a lot into his intentions. That seems much less problematic that undermining moderation as it occurs.
- root_axis 9y ago
  I don't get it. He's not taking pleasure, he's providing evidence of how people are harassing him when he is trying to have a calm discussion.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- graphememes 9y ago
  """ problematic """ Wow, trying to censor someones social account now.
- graspee 9y ago
  It's not problematic at all. As the creator of the Contributor Covenant says, "The CC applies to project spaces, not twitter". http://i.imgur.com/73SK9Yc.png http://i.imgur.com/73SK9Yc.png
spootnik 9y ago
Seems to be it. The issue is he didn't fall in line with the SJW agenda of the TSC and was in support of free speech.
peoplewindow 9y ago
I'm scan reading the article and don't see what's so inflammatory about it either. It's about the problem of campus censorship and lack of free speech in universities. It starts by suggesting that Isaac Newton would have been pushed out of modern universities, if zapped forward in time, due to his mental issues and eccentric beliefs about non-gravity related topics. Then it goes on to argue that there's a thing called "neuro-diversity" and universities are only catering to the "neuro-typical". The "neuro-divergent" should stand up for their rights against oppression. This seems like a rather forced way to try and cast what campus politics is doing as discrimination in the hope that the people enforcing speech codes will think again. It's kind of an odd thesis - I can see where the author is going with that, not sure I agree but I don't clearly disagree either. I just doubt it's a good argument. Regardless, the only people who could describe this as inflammatory are people on the war path, who want to expel anyone who isn't 110% committed to their ideology of punishing speech that isn't sufficiently "progressive". Seems like another day, another Damore to me.
- mattnewton 9y ago
  Honestly, I think Damore was roughly handing a much bigger nerve with a far more authoritative tone and a bigger name attached to his views. The potential (or extant) harm here is much less clear to me.
ebola1717 9y ago
What do you think you're missing? He undermined the processes he's meant to support, which sends a mixed message about the org's commitment to its Code of Conduct, and in fact his behavior undermined its authority. In addition, he explicitly violated some policies. Out of his 13 peers (other Node TSC members), 4 felt strongly enough about this that they have resigned.
- strictnein 9y ago
  I guess you and I just have different gauges in judging the severity of the above actions.
- curtisblaine 9y ago
  Six of them voted for no sanctions, though. And two abstained. Who lost the vote resigned, which is a way to say "we couldn't expel you by voting, now we're trying to create as much drama as possible because we just can't accept the decision, even if voted democratically by our peers"
  - fixermark 9y ago
    There is such a thing as "tyranny of the majority." Since there's no back-stop against it in the node.js steering, no reason to lend credence to an organization that you no longer feel comfortable supporting by staying on its steering committe.
  - root_axis 9y ago
    > now we're trying to create as much drama as possible because we just can't accept the decision, even if voted democratically by our peers The purpose of the vote was to determine if any action should be taken, the vote occurred and its outcome was respected. If individuals want to resign because they disagree with the outcome of the vote, they are clearly entitled to do so and it does not violate the spirit of democracy that those unsatisfied with the status-quo take a stand by moving on from the organization. They didn't trash the place or delete all the source code and ban all dissenters from the project, they simply resigned from their roles within the organization which allows it to continue unencumbered by the dissenters strongly held viewpoints. If they had voted to boot the guy and his supporters resigned to show solidarity and protest the decision, would you have been similarly critical?
gwrhgwrg 9y ago
This reads like "I don't like his politics, so I searched for things I can pretend are offences and put them first in the list to pretend it's not about his politics". Then they remove the list out of pretend concern for his privacy, so that readers can unleash their lurid imaginations ("OMG, must be a terrible guy! How many babies did he eat???") By the way, web archive sites are fascist, haven't you heard? http://i.magaimg.net/img/w17.jpg http://i.magaimg.net/img/w17.jpg

fixermark 9y ago

Of everything in there, this one is probably the most problematic. """ His tweeting of screen captures of immature responses suggests pleasure at having upset members of the JavaScript community and others. As a perceived leader, such behavior reflects poorly on the project. https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887790865766268928 https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887790865766268928 """

shkkmo 9y ago
I don't really see how this indicates pleasure, that seems to be uncharitably reading a lot into his intentions. That seems much less problematic that undermining moderation as it occurs.
root_axis 9y ago
I don't get it. He's not taking pleasure, he's providing evidence of how people are harassing him when he is trying to have a calm discussion.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
graphememes 9y ago
""" problematic """ Wow, trying to censor someones social account now.
graspee 9y ago
It's not problematic at all. As the creator of the Contributor Covenant says, "The CC applies to project spaces, not twitter". http://i.imgur.com/73SK9Yc.png http://i.imgur.com/73SK9Yc.png

spootnik 9y ago

Seems to be it. The issue is he didn't fall in line with the SJW agenda of the TSC and was in support of free speech.

peoplewindow 9y ago

I'm scan reading the article and don't see what's so inflammatory about it either. It's about the problem of campus censorship and lack of free speech in universities. It starts by suggesting that Isaac Newton would have been pushed out of modern universities, if zapped forward in time, due to his mental issues and eccentric beliefs about non-gravity related topics. Then it goes on to argue that there's a thing called "neuro-diversity" and universities are only catering to the "neuro-typical". The "neuro-divergent" should stand up for their rights against oppression. This seems like a rather forced way to try and cast what campus politics is doing as discrimination in the hope that the people enforcing speech codes will think again. It's kind of an odd thesis - I can see where the author is going with that, not sure I agree but I don't clearly disagree either. I just doubt it's a good argument. Regardless, the only people who could describe this as inflammatory are people on the war path, who want to expel anyone who isn't 110% committed to their ideology of punishing speech that isn't sufficiently "progressive". Seems like another day, another Damore to me.

mattnewton 9y ago
Honestly, I think Damore was roughly handing a much bigger nerve with a far more authoritative tone and a bigger name attached to his views. The potential (or extant) harm here is much less clear to me.

ebola1717 9y ago

What do you think you're missing? He undermined the processes he's meant to support, which sends a mixed message about the org's commitment to its Code of Conduct, and in fact his behavior undermined its authority. In addition, he explicitly violated some policies. Out of his 13 peers (other Node TSC members), 4 felt strongly enough about this that they have resigned.

strictnein 9y ago
I guess you and I just have different gauges in judging the severity of the above actions.
curtisblaine 9y ago
Six of them voted for no sanctions, though. And two abstained. Who lost the vote resigned, which is a way to say "we couldn't expel you by voting, now we're trying to create as much drama as possible because we just can't accept the decision, even if voted democratically by our peers"
- fixermark 9y ago
  There is such a thing as "tyranny of the majority." Since there's no back-stop against it in the node.js steering, no reason to lend credence to an organization that you no longer feel comfortable supporting by staying on its steering committe.
- root_axis 9y ago
  > now we're trying to create as much drama as possible because we just can't accept the decision, even if voted democratically by our peers The purpose of the vote was to determine if any action should be taken, the vote occurred and its outcome was respected. If individuals want to resign because they disagree with the outcome of the vote, they are clearly entitled to do so and it does not violate the spirit of democracy that those unsatisfied with the status-quo take a stand by moving on from the organization. They didn't trash the place or delete all the source code and ban all dissenters from the project, they simply resigned from their roles within the organization which allows it to continue unencumbered by the dissenters strongly held viewpoints. If they had voted to boot the guy and his supporters resigned to show solidarity and protest the decision, would you have been similarly critical?

gwrhgwrg 9y ago

This reads like "I don't like his politics, so I searched for things I can pretend are offences and put them first in the list to pretend it's not about his politics". Then they remove the list out of pretend concern for his privacy, so that readers can unleash their lurid imaginations ("OMG, must be a terrible guy! How many babies did he eat???") By the way, web archive sites are fascist, haven't you heard? http://i.magaimg.net/img/w17.jpg http://i.magaimg.net/img/w17.jpg