5 ms·

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 Condu

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?
  - curtisblaine 9y ago
    > which allows it to continue unencumbered by the dissenters strongly held viewpoints. I hope it does! :)
smsm42 9y ago
An idea that if an organization has a CoC all the members should be unquestioning fanatical supporters of it and can never even consider discussing the costs vs benefits of it or reevaluating the premises sounds weird and rather harmful for a healthy atmosphere. Since when the doubt is a thoughtcrime in tech community, that must result in immediate expulsion? Since when have we become so stuffy and drunk on "authority" that the mere thought of dissent is intolerable? > 4 felt strongly enough about this that they have resigned. Those people felt so strongly about somebody mulling the downsides of CoCs that they preferred to leave the project they worked on than to try and cooperate with the person that may have slightly different opinion. Unless CoC is pretty much the only thing in the universe that can never have downsides or unintended consequences, this is pretty depressing.
- geeky_time 9y ago
  I think you may be misunderstanding the nature of the grievances, here. I wasn't there, but having dug around a little bit, I don't believe that the people lodging the complaints are sitting around looking for Code of Conduct violations of which they can accuse people. It is one thing to have technical disagreements when working with a team of other humans. These debates can reveal some very strong opinions, but if the discussion stays about the tech, it generally isn't a problem for the team to move on, and certainly would not violate any Code of Conduct that I've ever read. It is an entirely different situation when several people seem to have been made to feel uncomfortable, excluded, marginalized, belittled, mocked, or shamed. Yes, some people have very thin skins and are easily offended, but is it likely that 4 people in this group were over-reacting, and that ultimately drove them to the point of resignation? Or is it more likely that there was a pattern of behavior from @rvagg that violated (or perhaps just consistently pushed the boundaries of) the agreed-upon norms of the group, as laid out in the Code of Conduct? I think his openly dismissive attitude about the Code of Conduct probably stemmed from him being unwilling or unable to follow it, and regularly being at odds with the rules. If it didn't bother him, why would he question it? More importantly, if the group doesn't want to honor the Code of Conduct they've established, why didn't they just change it to allow @rvagg to operate without feeling like he was at odds with the rules?

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?
- curtisblaine 9y ago
  > which allows it to continue unencumbered by the dissenters strongly held viewpoints. I hope it does! :)

smsm42 9y ago

An idea that if an organization has a CoC all the members should be unquestioning fanatical supporters of it and can never even consider discussing the costs vs benefits of it or reevaluating the premises sounds weird and rather harmful for a healthy atmosphere. Since when the doubt is a thoughtcrime in tech community, that must result in immediate expulsion? Since when have we become so stuffy and drunk on "authority" that the mere thought of dissent is intolerable? > 4 felt strongly enough about this that they have resigned. Those people felt so strongly about somebody mulling the downsides of CoCs that they preferred to leave the project they worked on than to try and cooperate with the person that may have slightly different opinion. Unless CoC is pretty much the only thing in the universe that can never have downsides or unintended consequences, this is pretty depressing.

geeky_time 9y ago
I think you may be misunderstanding the nature of the grievances, here. I wasn't there, but having dug around a little bit, I don't believe that the people lodging the complaints are sitting around looking for Code of Conduct violations of which they can accuse people. It is one thing to have technical disagreements when working with a team of other humans. These debates can reveal some very strong opinions, but if the discussion stays about the tech, it generally isn't a problem for the team to move on, and certainly would not violate any Code of Conduct that I've ever read. It is an entirely different situation when several people seem to have been made to feel uncomfortable, excluded, marginalized, belittled, mocked, or shamed. Yes, some people have very thin skins and are easily offended, but is it likely that 4 people in this group were over-reacting, and that ultimately drove them to the point of resignation? Or is it more likely that there was a pattern of behavior from @rvagg that violated (or perhaps just consistently pushed the boundaries of) the agreed-upon norms of the group, as laid out in the Code of Conduct? I think his openly dismissive attitude about the Code of Conduct probably stemmed from him being unwilling or unable to follow it, and regularly being at odds with the rules. If it didn't bother him, why would he question it? More importantly, if the group doesn't want to honor the Code of Conduct they've established, why didn't they just change it to allow @rvagg to operate without feeling like he was at odds with the rules?