3 ms·

I've said this before and I'll say it again: this is not an SJW issue. It's just not a social justice issue. The CoC existed long before these concerns, and it'

I've said this before and I'll say it again: this is not an SJW issue. It's just not a social justice issue. The CoC existed long before these concerns, and it's going to exist in the mainline fork no matter what happens in Ayo.js. The issue is inconsistent standards. Committee members are held to a lower standard than occasional contributors. Some people don't like that inconsistency and are leaving that culture. That's fine, because Ayo and Node can still share patches. The issue is purely that people who work on Ayo won't have to deal with any of the committee members from Node who can't be bothered to abide by their own code of conduct.

chisleu 9y ago
You can say it all you want. There isn't any evidence presented that any committee member (Rod Vagg?) is violating any code of conduct. He merely tweeted a well defined argument for inclusiveness for neurologically atypical people. It points out that overbearing CoC can be problematic and points to several very important figures that were NAT and it is from a tenured professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of New Mexico. It is disregarded by the SJW fringe of the node community because he has ties to articles around the men's rights movements. It's fine that there is a useless fork of node. There are tons of useless forks of many projects, but it's not fine to act like anyone has done anything wrong. He merely apologized for having to censor someone because the CoC is pretty vague: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md It's not a violation of the CoC. They are attacking him for their perceived undermining. No one has to pretend to agree with something in order to not violate it. Acting like his expressed disapproval is a violation of the CoC itself is the exact type of demonization he argues that the CoC leads to.

chisleu 9y ago

You can say it all you want. There isn't any evidence presented that any committee member (Rod Vagg?) is violating any code of conduct. He merely tweeted a well defined argument for inclusiveness for neurologically atypical people. It points out that overbearing CoC can be problematic and points to several very important figures that were NAT and it is from a tenured professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of New Mexico. It is disregarded by the SJW fringe of the node community because he has ties to articles around the men's rights movements. It's fine that there is a useless fork of node. There are tons of useless forks of many projects, but it's not fine to act like anyone has done anything wrong. He merely apologized for having to censor someone because the CoC is pretty vague: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md It's not a violation of the CoC. They are attacking him for their perceived undermining. No one has to pretend to agree with something in order to not violate it. Acting like his expressed disapproval is a violation of the CoC itself is the exact type of demonization he argues that the CoC leads to.