9 ms·

I think that everyone would be well served by stepping back from this and thinking carefully about commenting, before inserting snark and derision at either sid

I think that everyone would be well served by stepping back from this and thinking carefully about commenting, before inserting snark and derision at either side. I see a number of comments that trot out a lot of tired "anti-SJW" talking points, and these do not add to the dialogue and only create unnecessary animosity. I didn't see any negativity on the "pro-SJW" side yet - the responses to the former seem calm but are being downvoted - though I would advise the same. If your immediate reaction went to taking some sort of partisan stance on the issue, either for or against this decision by the author Myles Borins, or by the TSC's vote, or by Rod Vagg, then I urge you: please step back, psychologically, from this. Reflect on your thoughts before you resort to believing that any of these folks are part of your in group or not and basing your judgment on that quality, as opposed to the facts, which it appears few of us have.

strken 9y ago
It's a bit worrying that the steering committee for such a widely used technology, one which billion-dollar companies have built stacks around, could fracture because of a twitter fight. Without knowing the facts, the fact that we even know this happened and that it briefly ended up on the front page of HN is concerning.
- mcphage 9y ago
  > It's a bit worrying that the steering committee for such a widely used technology, one which billion-dollar companies have built stacks around, could fracture because of a twitter fight. Any group of people leading an organization can fracture because of a fight; it's nothing new, and the fact that it happened on twitter is immaterial. > Without knowing the facts, the fact that we even know this happened and that it briefly ended up on the front page of HN is concerning. Agreed. Given the list of problems was removed from the GH issue, I have no idea what this is about, and no way of forming an opinion on any of it. I at least will flag it.
  - rhapsodic 9y ago
    > Agreed. Given the list of problems was removed from the GH issue, I have no idea what this is about, and no way of forming an opinion on any of it. I at least will flag it. There is plenty of information in the comments to this post to get an idea of what it is about. I respectfully suggest that you get some insight before suppressing the post through flagging.
  - slang800 9y ago
    Well, it ended up getting archived before the list was removed. Whether that's right or wrong, the info is out there: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310 https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.co...
ebola1717 9y ago
Also, this article comes from another TSC member, meaning one of his peers. If 4 of your 12 peers resign because you weren't removed, there is almost certainly some merit to these complaints.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  Why not judge merit directly, yourself? As far as I can tell there is no merit to the complaints. If 4 members stepped down, that suggests Node TSC has a serious problem with people who are wildly extreme. Here's what appears to have happened based on the original complaint: 1. This guy tweets an article that discusses campus speech codes, university politics and so on. It doesn't attack anyone and is a fairly long-winded but reasonable contribution to the discussion about free speech. His tweet implies he does see CoCs as having downsides and that he finds this article to be persuasive. 2. In response, someone tweets that "I hope I meet you at a place without a CoC so I can take a dump on your laptop". Rod points out that this isn't a very nice response and is not a mature contribution to the conversation, "Hey here's an interesting discussion to be had vs ... <tweet screenshot>". Now let's look at the complaints. They assert: 1. Rod tweeted an "inflammatory article" 2. When he highlighted the immature response, this "suggests pleasure at having upset members of the JavaScript community and others". 3. Some woman complained and said she wouldn't contribute anymore. That woman asserted that "some people said he was bad but what can you do". This was "a reason for some to avoid project participation" 4. And "it is evidence to others that Node.js may not be serious about its commitment to community and inclusivity", citing a tweet that says the Quillette essay is "hot garbage" written by a "known MRA" (what the heck does MRA stand for?). I find this rationale extreme, absurd and scary. These people ARE in fact "warriors" by any definition of the term. I strongly disagree with the complaint because: * The article is not inflammatory. * After being subject to outright abuse and highlighting it, something that women do every day on Twitter, somehow this was turned into Rod being a bad person. This is pure doublethink. Rod was clearly annoyed and trying to point out that such responses are not acceptable. * A woman proceeded to do some serious shit-stirring and trolling, claiming that lots of anonymous people disliked Rod behind his back, but of course, was unwilling to say who. This is not acceptable behaviour. * Another woman dismissed the article with a straight ad-hominem on the author. The bad and abusive behaviour here is very clear and it's all by people who were objecting to Rod's tweet. Yet somehow this turned into some sort of trial. Fortunately, Node TSC rejected this transparent attempt to get rid of someone for having the temerity to tweet about politics. If there are other members who couldn't handle this and quit as a result, that can only be healthy for the project.
gedy 9y ago
I think the issue is a number of us have built our livelihood on node, and to see it stumble (in both PR and technical quality) is concerning. Especially if the stumbles are due to non-technical matters. Merging the CTC and TSC sounds like a smart approach to balance this: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/312 https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/312

strken 9y ago

It's a bit worrying that the steering committee for such a widely used technology, one which billion-dollar companies have built stacks around, could fracture because of a twitter fight. Without knowing the facts, the fact that we even know this happened and that it briefly ended up on the front page of HN is concerning.

mcphage 9y ago
> It's a bit worrying that the steering committee for such a widely used technology, one which billion-dollar companies have built stacks around, could fracture because of a twitter fight. Any group of people leading an organization can fracture because of a fight; it's nothing new, and the fact that it happened on twitter is immaterial. > Without knowing the facts, the fact that we even know this happened and that it briefly ended up on the front page of HN is concerning. Agreed. Given the list of problems was removed from the GH issue, I have no idea what this is about, and no way of forming an opinion on any of it. I at least will flag it.
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  > Agreed. Given the list of problems was removed from the GH issue, I have no idea what this is about, and no way of forming an opinion on any of it. I at least will flag it. There is plenty of information in the comments to this post to get an idea of what it is about. I respectfully suggest that you get some insight before suppressing the post through flagging.
- slang800 9y ago
  Well, it ended up getting archived before the list was removed. Whether that's right or wrong, the info is out there: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310 https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.co...

ebola1717 9y ago

Also, this article comes from another TSC member, meaning one of his peers. If 4 of your 12 peers resign because you weren't removed, there is almost certainly some merit to these complaints.

peoplewindow 9y ago
Why not judge merit directly, yourself? As far as I can tell there is no merit to the complaints. If 4 members stepped down, that suggests Node TSC has a serious problem with people who are wildly extreme. Here's what appears to have happened based on the original complaint: 1. This guy tweets an article that discusses campus speech codes, university politics and so on. It doesn't attack anyone and is a fairly long-winded but reasonable contribution to the discussion about free speech. His tweet implies he does see CoCs as having downsides and that he finds this article to be persuasive. 2. In response, someone tweets that "I hope I meet you at a place without a CoC so I can take a dump on your laptop". Rod points out that this isn't a very nice response and is not a mature contribution to the conversation, "Hey here's an interesting discussion to be had vs ... <tweet screenshot>". Now let's look at the complaints. They assert: 1. Rod tweeted an "inflammatory article" 2. When he highlighted the immature response, this "suggests pleasure at having upset members of the JavaScript community and others". 3. Some woman complained and said she wouldn't contribute anymore. That woman asserted that "some people said he was bad but what can you do". This was "a reason for some to avoid project participation" 4. And "it is evidence to others that Node.js may not be serious about its commitment to community and inclusivity", citing a tweet that says the Quillette essay is "hot garbage" written by a "known MRA" (what the heck does MRA stand for?). I find this rationale extreme, absurd and scary. These people ARE in fact "warriors" by any definition of the term. I strongly disagree with the complaint because: * The article is not inflammatory. * After being subject to outright abuse and highlighting it, something that women do every day on Twitter, somehow this was turned into Rod being a bad person. This is pure doublethink. Rod was clearly annoyed and trying to point out that such responses are not acceptable. * A woman proceeded to do some serious shit-stirring and trolling, claiming that lots of anonymous people disliked Rod behind his back, but of course, was unwilling to say who. This is not acceptable behaviour. * Another woman dismissed the article with a straight ad-hominem on the author. The bad and abusive behaviour here is very clear and it's all by people who were objecting to Rod's tweet. Yet somehow this turned into some sort of trial. Fortunately, Node TSC rejected this transparent attempt to get rid of someone for having the temerity to tweet about politics. If there are other members who couldn't handle this and quit as a result, that can only be healthy for the project.

gedy 9y ago

I think the issue is a number of us have built our livelihood on node, and to see it stumble (in both PR and technical quality) is concerning. Especially if the stumbles are due to non-technical matters. Merging the CTC and TSC sounds like a smart approach to balance this: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/312 https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/312