4 ms·

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

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.
- curtisblaine 9y ago
  Also, a woman reopened an issue with a screenshot of what the TSC decided to redact. Such behaviour is unacceptable and should be subject to banning.
- ebola1717 9y ago
  That was an unconvincing post, and I'm not going to waste my time explaining why.
  - rkeene2 9y ago
    I found the post informative ("convincing", to use your word since there seems to be nothing in the post that attempts to convince but merely inform) and I see nothing in your response that addresses any of the points raised. Perhaps instead of telling us only that your time is more valuable than engaging in discourse on the topic if you did provide more information then we could see new sides and facets of this information that, from what I can tell, you are alleging are missing.
    - ebola1717 9y ago
      I've been debating on the internet since I was 13 - I know when someone is worth arguing with, and when they refuse to see the structural issues in play.
- smsm42 9y ago
  Please tell me that nodejs didn't just have a vote on removing a member because the said member shared an article which was critical of speech codes and implied CoCs can have downsides. And 40% voted for removal. Please tell me it was something more serious and controversial. Because if that's what we arrived at - that the mere implication that you might not be 100% devoted to the orthodoxy, that you might be considering committing a thoughtcrime and questioning the dogma - not denying yet, not even arguing, just thinking about questioning! - you already in serious danger of being ostracized. This is scary as hell.
  - 9y ago
curtisblaine 9y ago
> If 4 of your 12 peers resign because you weren't removed, there is almost certainly some merit to these complaints. If 6 of them vote against removing the "accused" party, and 2 of them abstain, there's certainly little merit to these complaints.

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.

curtisblaine 9y ago
Also, a woman reopened an issue with a screenshot of what the TSC decided to redact. Such behaviour is unacceptable and should be subject to banning.
ebola1717 9y ago
That was an unconvincing post, and I'm not going to waste my time explaining why.
- rkeene2 9y ago
  I found the post informative ("convincing", to use your word since there seems to be nothing in the post that attempts to convince but merely inform) and I see nothing in your response that addresses any of the points raised. Perhaps instead of telling us only that your time is more valuable than engaging in discourse on the topic if you did provide more information then we could see new sides and facets of this information that, from what I can tell, you are alleging are missing.
  - ebola1717 9y ago
    I've been debating on the internet since I was 13 - I know when someone is worth arguing with, and when they refuse to see the structural issues in play.
smsm42 9y ago
Please tell me that nodejs didn't just have a vote on removing a member because the said member shared an article which was critical of speech codes and implied CoCs can have downsides. And 40% voted for removal. Please tell me it was something more serious and controversial. Because if that's what we arrived at - that the mere implication that you might not be 100% devoted to the orthodoxy, that you might be considering committing a thoughtcrime and questioning the dogma - not denying yet, not even arguing, just thinking about questioning! - you already in serious danger of being ostracized. This is scary as hell.
- 9y ago

curtisblaine 9y ago

> If 4 of your 12 peers resign because you weren't removed, there is almost certainly some merit to these complaints. If 6 of them vote against removing the "accused" party, and 2 of them abstain, there's certainly little merit to these complaints.