31 ms·

Rod Vagg's statement on the request to be removed from the Node.js CTC

214 points by krlkv 9y ago

par 9y ago
Node community is going to argue its way into obscurity.
- jamescostian 9y ago
  While the snark of this comment may push it into obscurity by those who hate snarky comments, I totally agree. I was surprised we could even still have Node.js after the huge Node.js vs io.js debacle. I think all of these arguments are about important issues, but they also can give a very negative impression to outsiders (not to mention how insiders aware of all the facts may feel). That said, I am at least happy to see a he's going for a middle ground - he seems to be saying he won't step down, but he also looks like he's apologizing for anything he did wrong. Perhaps that's the best way to end the argument despite it not 100% pleasing either side
  - thehardsphere 9y ago
    It's the only adult thing for him to do, considering that he didn't even know that people were offended.
  - wolco 9y ago
    The Node.js vs io.js fork changed the way many looked at node and probably changed its growth axis. This is not the same and highlights why a code of conduct focusing on moral issues is not always the best path for a project/language.
    - jamescostian 9y ago
      Perhaps this is because my coffee rush ended and I'm currently in the post-coffee slump, but I don't follow what you're saying. Are you saying this event will/has not change(d) the way many looked at node as well as perhaps its growth axis? Also, when you mention these changes, I'm honestly not familiar with the stats - did they improve or decline? I also don't follow your second paragraph, but that could be simply because I missed what you were saying in your first
      - wolco 9y ago
        The first fork drove some away because some felt the ecosystem was fragmenting but many came back after they merged back or understood io.js advantages. Some new developers who might have choosen the language never came back. The growth curve was altered because of those events. This new split will not drive people away or stop the adoption in the same way. It's may cause some to put there changes in this new fork but this new fork will push changes to the node.js repo and this new fork will keep pulling changes from node.js.
  - whipoodle 9y ago
    Perhaps counterintuitively, debate and dissent can make projects stronger. I definitely would say that was the case with the iojs fork and subsequent merge. This time I am much more unfamiliar with the goings-on, so I can't say if it will happen again.
  - tomcam 9y ago
    Completely agreed, although the parent's post does not appear to be snark to me. I believe it is sincere, and I fear exactly the same outcome.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
nawgszy 9y ago
I don't particularly understand the claims against this man, but as this organization and its discussions happen (almost) entirely online [is this correct?], surely it must be incredibly obvious whether or not allegations brought against him are true or not?
- jamescostian 9y ago
  It seems it's not that simple. At least according to him, this wasn't all online, e.g. consider this quote: > I do not recall being asked to remove the names of the companies involved, I have only now seen that they have been edited out of my post. I cannot find any evidence that such a request was even made. This would have been a trivial matter on my part and I would have done it without argument if I had have seen such a request.
- ebola1717 9y ago
  As I understand, the question wasn't the veracity of the claims - I'm not sure those were contested. The question was whether they warranted his removal, and that comes down to how much you care about the Code of Conduct and believe team members are responsible for upholding its legitimacy, even if they disagree privately or internally.
wakeywakeywakey 9y ago
Having reviewed the relevant tweets/GitHub issues/blog posts, I feel most of the noise is generated by people who make it their mission to find things about which to be outraged. The NodeJS brand has the momentum necessary to build great things. If they squander it by cry-wolf-forking every time there is an internal disagreement, another JS engine (e.g. Chakra) will take the helm.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- KGIII 9y ago
  It seems to me that when one seeks umbrage, one finds it.
- AlexeyBrin 9y ago
  > The NodeJS brand has the momentum necessary to build great things. If they squander it by cry-wolf-forking every time there is an internal disagreement, another JS engine (e.g. Chakra) will take the helm. Node.js is not an engine, Node.js uses the V8 engine (same engine that powers the Chrome browser). Technically you could use Node.js with the Chakra engine or other JavaScript engines.
  - flanbiscuit 9y ago
    Didn't Microsoft do that? Created a version of Node using Chakra as proof of concept
    - BinaryIdiot 9y ago
      No, Microsoft modified node to allow drop in replacement of the JavaScript engine and then provided a Chakra backed version of node. It actually seemed to work pretty well and was pretty well received by the community. I believe others were attempting to do the same with the Firefox JS engine (SpiderMonkey? I can't remember what it's called) using the same base of work Microsoft created.
thwd 9y ago
Shame how such a cool project as node.js can drown in political fingerpointing. The only measurement that counts (in my opinion) is cold hard code contributions.
- Domenic_S 9y ago
  That sounds nice until you think about it -- what code are you writing? Who decided on the the feature you're writing? Who's writing the docs, and tutorials, and putting together conferences and paying bills and maintaining tax status and filing paperwork, and...?
- jamescostian 9y ago
  I fully agree that it sounds awful for a project to go down due to politics. But only paying attention to code reviews ignores how the community feels, as well as non-code work. For example, look at Rod Vagg's contributions to node: https://github.com/nodejs/node/commits?author=rvagg https://github.com/nodejs/node/commits?author=rvagg At least from the first page, it seems he's mostly working on documentation, specifically changelogs. But honestly, those changelogs are fantastic and definitely make a difference in my life (I don't want to comb through tons of commits to figure out what has changed between versions of Node). It might not be code per se, but the contribution is noticeable. Even if all you do is make people feel welcome in a community or bring people in, those are still worthwhile (new people can mean more code). And if you're an amazing programmer but make everyone want to leave the project, one can see how that would also affect the code (contributors leaving).
  - nogbit 9y ago
    Usually, one who writes change logs is part of leadership deciding what should be worked on next, strategy, prioritizing and often times accountability as well. This is because they have a birds eye view of everything that is being worked on. Not easy and often thankless.
- geofft 9y ago
  Are you going to accept cold hard code contributions from someone who regularly writes excellent code and engages in political fingerpointing? Are you going to accept cold hard code contributions from someone who regularly writes excellent code and has the technical sense of the community about 80% of the time, and is at odds with the technical sense of the community 20% of the time, and regularly tells everyone involved in the 20% case that they're idiots and the project will fail if they don't merge the remaining 20% of their code (which is technically excellent too, just not implementing the design people want)? Are you going to accept cold hard code contributions from someone who generally writes good code that works on the first try but refuses to listen to code reviews? Are you going to accept cold hard code contributions under the wrong license? (Licenses are politics, not code!)
avaer 9y ago
Are long-winded quarrels and dysfunctions unique to node core, or is node core just transparent in documenting the making of the sausage?
- Finnucane 9y ago
  See also: all of human history.
- mjpuser 9y ago
  No, libreboot did as well: https://libreboot.org/news/unity.html https://libreboot.org/news/unity.html
geofft 9y ago
A bit of a thought experiment for myself: suppose that Rod were as terrible as the worst possible claims made against him. (I am confident he's not.) Suppose he were actively, consciously hoping to deceive and harm the Node community. (I am also confident he's not.) What sort of statement would he write? How much would it look like this one?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- adamrezich 9y ago
  Once somebody has decided someone else's guilt, all following stimuli is interpreted through the lens of confirmation bias by default—and it takes an uncommonly truth-seeking mind to see past it. No matter how "heartfelt" or "thoughtful" a written or verbal apology is, it won't change any minds that've already been made up. This has been happening more and more recently, both online and in geopolitics.
  - geofft 9y ago
    Eh, my personal reaction was that I was significantly more sympathetic to him after reading his writeup, so I was wondering if that's actually evidence-based or just emotion-based.
    - GenericsMotors 9y ago
      Please follow up on what was the supposed evidence against him and you will see his response was reasonable.
      - geofft 9y ago
        Oh yeah - his response was definitely reasonable if the facts are that the supposed evidence against him was trumped up and he's in the right. I'm just trying to figure out if his response is also what I'd expect to see if the facts are that the supposed evidence against him is completely accurate and that he's a toxic contributor who's trying to hurt the project.
Rjevski 9y ago
Does anyone have a TLDR about this story? I haven't had the time to follow all the drama.
- kbenson 9y ago
  Just reading through his response takes quite a while, and at the end you're left either accepting his interpretation and explanation, or you need to probably wade through some multiple of that content in disparate other sources to get the other side. Given the types of complaints and their subjective nature in some instances, I imagine you're probably looking at something close to 4-5 hours at least to get enough context to form an objective opinion of your own on this situation if you aren't coming into it with that background knowledge already. I'm not willing to invest that.
- jdp23 9y ago
  Here's the background: https://thenewstack.io/node-js-forked-complaints-repeated-harassment/ https://thenewstack.io/node-js-forked-complaints-repeated-ha...
- wmf 9y ago
  If there was a TLDR, would you believe it? What if there are two TLDRs that say completely opposite things? I don't follow Node, but I've seen the Bitcoin community get to a place where understanding the politics alone could be a full-time job. It's pretty sad.
- gaius 9y ago
  Honestly, GitHub gets more like Tumblr every day.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - PrimHelios 9y ago
    It's been that way for a while. One of the big reasons I up and moved away from it. I only use it to send PRs for Github hosted repos now. It's amazing how quickly an organization or platform can just die like this. Sure, it isn't dead dead, but it's descended into a pit of political BS and petty drama.
chis 9y ago
It's insane that we might reach a point where people install different branches of a project based on their political leanings... I think the main takeaway here is that a Code of Conduct, while valuable, has to be treated carefully. A lot of these projects agreed to a Code of Conduct just to appease a certain faction of their devs, and are now seeing that it can be used against them.
- mayank 9y ago
  There is absolutely no evidence that this fork will gain traction, because it contributes nothing new technically, so it's unlikely we'll reach the point you mention.
  - GenericsMotors 9y ago
    But it has a PR open to bolster its "VALUES.md" file, as well as an issue for the most important subject of a logo. There is no doubt that this fork is future of server-side JS.
    - mattkrea 9y ago
      I truly hope we are about the high water mark for this kind of entirely irrelevant nonsense. It seems at least in this case the majority of the TSC had the sense to properly deem this ridiculous.
  - chis 9y ago
    I'm not an expert, but it seems within the realm of possibility. Despite what hackernews thinks, the forkers have a somewhat reasonable argument, in that Vagg did violate the Code of Conduct (because it is extreme), and the committee voted to ignore it (because he's a valuable contributor). Morality aside, it calls the system into question if someone can violate established rules and get away with it because the judges disagree with the rules. Also, several members of their ruling committee left to make the fork. So it's not just a bunch of randoms, and they might be able to make some meaningful progress on their own.
andrewguenther 9y ago
> I have submitted myself to our Code of Conduct as a participant in this project. I have been involved in the application of our Code of Conduct. But I do not accept it as a sacred text that is above critique or even discussion. This, to me, is one of the most important lines of his response. I feel like critiques of CoCs and other related documents and processes coming from a white male are often interpreted as hostile. I would consider myself an ally, but I am afraid to weigh in on these kinds of discussions because differing opinions are so often manipulated into "hate" and "toxicity."
- adamrezich 9y ago
  > I feel like critiques of CoCs and other related documents and processes coming from a white male are often interpreted as hostile. At what point do we stop ignoring this inconvenient truth?
  - retox 9y ago
    If you want to be taken seriously by these troublemaking outrage addicts as a while male, you need to get a weird haircut and to dye your hair a few different colors. Chunky glasses are a plus.
    - thehardsphere 9y ago
      And start calling yourself a woman.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      Statements like yours do nothing to help matters.
      - ocfx 9y ago
        There is nothing to address or help. The people getting outraged are such an insignificant yet vocal minority. Their entire existence revolves around feeling victimized so they will use any opportunity to call attention to their victimhood.
GenericsMotors 9y ago
TLDR: core contributor displeases blue-haired SF nobodies, who fail to evict him from the project. They proceed to throw a temper-tantrum and create a useless fork which so far has done nothing but bike-shedding.
- parzivalm 9y ago
  While you most likely made that comment in jest. Stereotyping everyone into a category like "blue-haired SF nobodies" is rather offensive. Not saying I disagree about the temper-tantrum, but there was no reason to state it in the way you did.
  - GenericsMotors 9y ago
    Yes, you are right, it was an unnecessary jab...and I apologise if this offends. The frustrated comment I gave is from the perspective of someone who is not an american; I don't see american californians as the moral authority of how open source software must be developed. It is a sad day when politics must be paramount when contributing to a foss project. If developers wanted this burden they'd need look no further than working in a soul-crushing multinational mega-corp. EDIT: please do not downvote the parent comment to this. He/she has commented to continue discussion, if you disagree please discuss, not downvote.
    - johnny22 9y ago
      > It is a sad day when politics must be paramount when contributing to a foss project Politics have always been the reason for me. It depends on what you call politics though. I got involved with FOSS initially because of the GPL. I then found a project whose aims I agreed with, and also had a welcoming environment. I might contribute a one off patch here or there to some other projects, but the ones I stay are such as those.
  - thehardsphere 9y ago
    It might be offensive but it sure is accurate.
bjt2n3904 9y ago
This has echoes of Title IX proceedings. From the account above. > Some time ago I received notification via email that there are complaints against me. No details were provided and I was informed that I would neither receive those details or be involved in the whatever process was to take place. Further, TSC members were not allowed to speak to me directly about these matters, including my work colleagues also on the TSC. I was never provided with an opportunity to understand the specific charges against me or be involved in any discussions on this topic from that point onward. From the article below, [1] > Right away, the accused is cautioned about confidentiality: s/he is warned not to discuss the pending complaint with colleagues or students. The accused will only learn of the accusations against them when s/he meets face-to-face with the local Title IX enforcement squad. Kangaroo court. [1] http://quillette.com/2017/08/24/survived-title-ix-star-chamber/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/24/survived-title-ix-star-chamb...
dmitrygr 9y ago
He is clear, logical, and reasonable. Poor guy, they will eat him alive.
- whipoodle 9y ago
  Oh stop. "They" who? There was already a vote to remove him and the motion was rejected. He has clearly declined to back down in the matter (I don't mean this negatively, I just mean he's not folding). Somehow I suspect he will be just fine.
orless 9y ago
What I'm completely missing in this discussion of Code of Conduct violation is a specific list of which actions violated which clauses in this Code of Conduct. I see a list of complaints, but for an outsider it is really hard to follow why these actions are considered to be CoC violations. Take this, for instance: "In [moderation repository discussion], 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. It also undercut the authority as moderators of other CTC/TSC members." Do you know how this reads? A case is being made against a "toxic" person who "repeatedly breaks CoC" and the first complaint against him is that he apologized to a contributor? Really? I just don't get this.
- BinaryIdiot 9y ago
  This was how I viewed it as well. Especially if what Rod said about not being notified about ANY of these items is true. This just appears someone compiled a list of things Rod screwed up, most of which he seemed to own and tried to fix. Maybe my impression is wrong but it just comes off as awful. I tried getting the entire story. I tried reading through the complaints, hunting down tweets and even reading Rod's side. But I eventually had to give it; it was going to take me hours to gain a small amount of context (some appears to be private / offline so I don't see a way to gain all of the necessary context to judge this situation). I get the feeling people are going to take their biases, one way or another, and run with what their side is because I don't see a quick way of wading through all of this.
  - mdekkers 9y ago
    it just comes off as awful This is why have stopped contributing to OSS in a public fashion over 20 years ago. Nasty backstabbing politics (and in my case, there was actually a business purpose behind it, unlike most of this drama) People online are awful and the veil of anonymity and distance brings out the worst in people. Fuck that.
    - wmmm 9y ago
tomcam 9y ago
A code of conduct without transparency or due process seems more than dangerous to me. It is the stuff of kangaroo courts and star chambers.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  James Snell's reasoning behind hiding the accusations inside the committee deliberations is theoretically sound: to keep Rod from getting harassed. I mean, under the current circumstances, a public, enumerated list of all your supposed crimes is pretty much guaranteed to bring a mob down on your head, and it would probably rocket to the top of Google searches for your name -- regardless of how the process turned out. But transparency in the process is also important. I don't have a good answer for this. It seems to be damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't.
  - wmmm 9y ago
    > James Snell's reasoning behind hiding the accusations inside the committee deliberations is theoretically sound: to keep Rod from getting harassed. No. It is not. Saying that the specific accusations were removed to keep Rod from getting harassed suggests that it must have been something serious. Fortunately there's the Web Archive and you see what was the 3 most serious crimes that rod was accused of, and I quote: 1. "Rod’s first action was to apologize to a contributor who had been repeatedly moderated" 2. "Rod did not moderate himself when asked by another foundation director" 3. "Most recently Rod tweeted in support of an inflammatory anti-Code-of-Conduct article" Some of this is NOT EVEN TRUE - see Rod's response: https://medium.com/@rvagg/the-truth-about-rod-vagg-f063f6a53557 https://medium.com/@rvagg/the-truth-about-rod-vagg-f063f6a53... - as no evidence was ever provided that he was indeed asked to "moderate himself" (read: remove what he posted in a comment on GitHub which was not even ever accused of being incorrect). The third point is deliberately misleading and you can see for yourself - just see the tweet in question: https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841 https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841 Rod twitted no more no less but: "If you've never considered the potential downsides of codes of conduct, here's a good place to start" and posted a link to The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech by Geoffrey Miller - who is described by Wikipedia as: "Geoffrey F. Miller (born 1965 in Cincinnati, Ohio) is an American evolutionary psychologist, serving as an associate professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico and known for his expertise in sexual selection in human evolution, and for his views on the evolution through sexual selection of the human brain as sexual ornamentation." - see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Miller_(psychologist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Miller_(psychologist) As you can see, when someone is quoting a very interesting article of a known professor of psychology with the only comment of "If you've never considered the potential downsides of codes of conduct, here's a good place to start" and THEN someone else describes it as: "Rod tweeted in support of an inflammatory anti-Code-of-Conduct article" then it is a deliberate misinformation - but who will take the time to search for the real tweet, follow the article, read it and read about its author? No one. But the rest of the world is already describing Rod as "a person who has generally been standing in the way of making Node.js an inclusive project" because of the mysterious accusations that were later removed - see: https://github.com/ayojs/ayo/issues/4 https://github.com/ayojs/ayo/issues/4 Now, even if all of the accusations were indeed true and even if they were not blown out of proportion - it all boils down to 3 points: 1. he apologized someone for being censored 2. he didn't respond to self-censorship request fast enough and instead got censored by someone else 3. he twitted a link to an article on Twitter - a medium where no one can censor him unlike on GitHub, an article that (God forbid!) explains the exact same problems that we see here. See the original accusation and think for yourself - were the actual accusations removed to defend Rod from harassment or to make us think that it must have been serious misbehavior if there was a risk of harassment if anyone knew the facts involved? THAT is the real reason of never talking about the real "crimes". Think about it. See: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310 https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.co... > I mean, under the current circumstances, a public, enumerated list of all your supposed crimes is pretty much guaranteed to bring a mob down on your head, and it would probably rocket to the top of Google searches for your name -- regardless of how the process turned out. See? Even you assumed that those must be something that rod should be ashamed of. Meanwhile it was ONLY those 3 things that I described above. Now, when those were removed, people who google for his name will see articles like "Node.js forks again – this time it's a war of words over anti-sex-pest codes of conduct" and think that he must be a "sex-pest" because all of the actual accusations were (deliberately) removed.
bhouston 9y ago
Too much drama and polemics. My god he spent a lot of time on that response -- like hours. If you are writing long emails dealing with responses to drama, you need to move on. Not because you are at fault but the whole situation is screwed up and not worth your time. This is not a win-win situation, but an everyone lose situation. It means you and others are in the muck. Once you get a bunch of these accusations and long polemical post flying around it is nearly impossible to figure out who is right and who is wrong. The way people try to win here is ultra long polemical posts, secret discussions, accusations, character assassinations, etc. Non of which is at all productive. Being in the muck is a huge waste of time and energy for everyone. Find something that doesn't involve so much drama, life is short. I think one rule in software development is that once you are engaging in polemics, especially many hours of it per day, and not technical matters, something is sick about the situation -- get out of it.
- eric_b 9y ago
  Was "Polemic" in your word of the day email or something? Anyways, Rod's character is being assassinated on the internet. Prospective employers could Google his name and all they'll see is one side of things, unless he attempts to defend himself. Additionally - the people wielding the pitchforks want him to just give up. At some point it's important for people to take a stand if they believe in their principles - or maybe I'm just old fashioned.
  - bhouston 9y ago
    This is a polemic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic It is not a means of trying to fix the issue, but rather a strong worded, accusatory, defensive blast at his critics by someone who believes they were wronged and others are at fault. This is not a "how to get to yes" type response, but rather a response that just inflames a situation, and causes everyone to dig in. There is going to be no winner going down this path, just losers all around and a lot of wasted energy and time. Yuk.
    - eric_b 9y ago
rdtsc 9y ago
It was pretty hard to discern what happened. A lot of text and veiled insinuations. He is how far I got: It was this article tweeted by Rod: http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-speech/ http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-spe... Which was noticed by a member of the community: https://twitter.com/captainsafia/status/887782785221615618 https://twitter.com/captainsafia/status/887782785221615618 Does that describe it? Maybe someone has a more clear summary One thing I noticed is that Node.js community seems to be followed by drama. Maybe it's just something I misunderstood, but I have observed Python, Erlang, Elixir, other communities around specific projects and libraries and I just don't see these many scandals there. In fact at one point when I reject Node.js as viable platform, the community scandals and seeming immaturity was one of top factors. What is it about this community that seems to attract this kind of behavior? And note I am not taking any sides in this case, as it is not clear what happened, it is just it looks messy to an outside developer looking in.
- mdekkers 9y ago
  What is it about this community that seems to attract this kind of behavior? I don't know about Node.js specifically, but I found when it is a project with a very high code-to-comms ration, this doesn't happen often. When there are a lot of non-coding "Open Source Groupies" involved in a project that start talking about "community engagement" and the like (or fledgling commercial entities, trying to cash in and influence), this shit isn't far behind. Good open source code speaks for itself, and doesn't require non-code contributions. Or boards. Or a "Governance Structure".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  I do not know that I have the answer, but I do have a guess: Node.js is the only one of those projects whose development is primarily backed by a corporation. Culturally, this sort of drama can only take place in environments where the "shut up and show me the code" hacker ethos is either missing or superceeded by other concerns. When a single company has significant control of the project, its priorities will override the project's. Many companies are interested in widespread adoption of the project, which is how "inclusion" ends up working its way on the list of project priorities. Many companies are also averse to controversy, so they're inclined to simply cut someone loose if there is a problem just to make the problem go away. I could be wrong in the specific case of Node.js; the last time I paid attention to its governance was during the gendered code comment fiasco, where the contributor who was kicked out did not work for Joyent. But I have seen it in other open source contexts, most recently in the Drupal project.
zbentley 9y ago
Possibly off-topic: this is why GitHub, and GitLab, are both problematic platforms for online collaboration and community-building. There was once a list of grievances against this person here https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310 https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310. That list is no longer present; it has been redacted, and a reason for that redaction has been posted. As someone who has zero context for this issue, this makes it very hard for me to understand. This redaction is not something that can happen easily with source code. Comments and other "metadata" can be edited, permanently and without a view into history. That makes it very hard to trace the genealogy of discussions. Sure, you can rewrite git history and push, but that's a) less durable, because someone might have a fork/copy of the repo, and b) much less common by convention. I really don't like the tendency of GitHub/GitLab as platforms to encourage the "facebook style" of content authorship (what you posted is what you posted . . . until someone edits, it, then it never was that in the eyes of recent arrivals). Edit: I will probably accidentally type markdown into HN comments until the day I die.
- pvorb 9y ago
  Fortunately, somebody already took a snapshot and there's a way back: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310 https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.co...
  - mdip 9y ago
    That was my first thought. A lot of people in the last several years have learned the hard way that for all practical purposes, the Internet tends to be forever. Sure, you may not be able to find that really useful utility you once used to parse regular expressions because the author stopped maintaining it, took the web site down and never released the source code[0], but that one time you[1] drank too much and tweeted something embarrassing will be discoverable on Google next to your name for decades after you die. [0] That's been a bugger of mine for a while -- if anyone knows where Rad Regular Expression Designer went, I'll e-mail you a soda. [1] Or when someone who shares your name and got arrested for theft (thank God he lives in a part of the country I have never visited).
- 9y ago
orless 9y ago
As a thought experiment imagine your manager asks you about the new node.js fork and whether you should switch to it. What would you say?
- zbentley 9y ago
  "Whatever you pay me to do."
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  If your manager is aware enough of the situation to know there is a fork, but is not aware enough to know that the fork is pure politics, it might be time to change managers. That is such an odd superposition of being simultaneously informed and not that one couldn't help but wonder what other strategic mistakes would happen.
  - gaius 9y ago
    News of this has made mainstream tech news sites like El Reg. That's how I originally heard about it, I don't do much Github these days.
    - thehardsphere 9y ago
      If your manager is relying on mainstream news to inform decisions regarding their product's primary software dependency, it might be time to change managers.
      - orless 9y ago
        Since it is so serious, I promise I will change the imaginary managery from the thought experiment.
gred 9y ago
We need an updated Waldorf Statement [1]. "Members of the Node.js community deplore the action of the CTC men who have been cited for contempt by the Foundation board. We do not desire to prejudge their legal rights, but their actions have been a disservice to this project and have impaired their usefulness to the industry." "We will forthwith discharge or suspend without compensation those in our employ, and will not re-employ any of these men until such a time as he is acquitted on Twitter or has purged himself of contempt and declares under oath that he is not a Meritocracist." "On the broader issue of alleged sexist and non-inclusive elements in Silicon Valley, our members are likewise prepared to take positive action." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_Statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_Statement
dmitrij 9y ago
It's been quite a journey from a "great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches"[1] to this mess. Bureaucracy always wins in the end. [1] <http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/index.html#catbmain> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mattkrea 9y ago
Not surprised to see James Snell prominently involved in this. I've had bad feelings about this since the io.js group joined the foundation. This is upsetting having followed (and used) the project for so long.
ChuckMcM 9y ago
One of the things that is useful about due process is the right to confront your accusers and cross examine them under oath. Without those rights, it is difficult, if not impossible, to see justice done. Too often these important elements are missing, and Rod's statement "At no point have I been provided with an opportunity to answer to these complaints, correct the factual errors contained in them (see below), apologize and make amends where possible, or provide additional context that may further explain accusations against me." suggests that this lack of due process is present in this case as well. When "Somebody complained about you in a serious way, but we can't say who, or the substance of the complaint." is the standard against which the process is measured, then it leaves itself open for abuse.
- GenericsMotors 9y ago
  Indeed. And while the fork proclaims to be more inclusive and provide safe-space, how am I as a developer to feel safe when I am subject to kangaroo-court processes? And this is the reward for the effort of contributing time & code to a project? No, this is not inclusiveness.
- kbenson 9y ago
  This is, as I see it, an unfortunate side effect of vastly under valuing intent and over valuing individual interpretations and how they make people feel. There needs to be a balance, and when there's not you end up with problems. If that's what happened in this case, it might have resulted in fault being a much more nebulous concept to those people. It's possible he said some things which ended up hurting people's feelings. It's entirely possibly he had no intention his actions be interpreted as they were. In that case, if you over value intent, he did nothing wrong, and some people were being too sensitive. If you over value interpretation, he should have known better, and it's his responsibility to be on top of how his actions would be interpreted. Neither extreme is even remotely workable for all situations. The only thing that works in practice is that people accept that their wording sometimes needs changing based on common perceptions of it, and also that people may not have interpreted something as intended and intention matters as well. The only way to do this in practice is to actually communicate intent and interpretation when there's a problem so corrections can be made if they apply, and to both parties being open to accepting those corrections. This is obviously impossible if there is no communication.
danso 9y ago
I didn't know who Mr. Vagg was or his role in Node before reading his post, and without looking at posts/tweets from the people who opposed him, or having a clear grasp of the controversy, I still appreciated that he put the time toward a lengthy rebuttal. Writing a lot of words, for any reason, is a decent time investment. And it takes significantly more time to make it reasonably accommodating and (at least from my non-informed viewpoint) not obviously antagonistic. Whatever the merit of the arguments/complaints, I can at least appreciate that this is something important to him. Since the primary complaints against him involve details that he does not specify (and may not be easily findable after a lot of digging), I was interested in the 3rd listed complaint, which was about how he allegedly conducted himself on Twitter: > Most recently Rod tweeted in support of an inflammatory anti-Code-of-Conduct article. As a perceived leader in the project, it can be difficult for outsiders to separate Rod’s opinions from that of the project. Knowing the space he is participating in and the values of our community, Rod should have predicted the kind of response this tweet received. https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841* https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841* Point 1 of his rebuttal: > The post I linked to was absolutely not an anti-Code-of-Conduct article. It was an article written by an Associate Professor of Evolutionary Psychology at the University of New Mexico, discussing free speech in general and suggesting a case against speech codes in American university campuses. In sharing this, I hoped to encourage meaningful discussion regarding the possible shortcomings of some standard Code of Conduct language. My intent was not to suggest that the Node.js project should not have a Code of Conduct in place.* Point 4: > To re-state for further clarity, I have not made a case against Codes of Conduct in general, but rather, would like to see ongoing discussion about how such social guidelines could be improved upon, as they clearly have impact on open source project health. Here's his Tweet and its reply chain: https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841 https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841 I don't think the tweet rises to the level of demanding his removal. I don't know Vagg or his Twitter account so I don't know what his rhetorical style is (and I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt that Twitter is part-performance). But I didn't find his rebuttal to be convincing. It's not just that he tweeted out an article that may have annoyed/offended people. It's the way his tweet replies are what you'd expect from someone who just doesn't like CoC's, but is too politically savvy to say it, e.g. "And folks who think there's a possibility that CoCs may not be achieving their stated aims? No room for discussion on that?" "I accept that, but there are surely valid concerns about their current implementation that could lead to improved solutions" "If we're talking evidence, I'd love to see some solid data on the use of CoCs, it doesn't exist, we just have to have faith." "But I have witnessed the negatives, again and again, the most tragic are against those who don't naturally fit in" Even accepting that Twitter is just not ideal for substantive debate, it's hard to not feel he's being less than upfront. He wants an open discussion about CoC's. But every tweet has the tone of "But maybe CoCs can be bad? Why isn't there data? etc etc". For the sake of argument, I'll happily assume his premise -- that CoCs may be inherently flawed and lead to the injustice they purport to fight -- but why doesn't he describe an actual example? Calling for "open discussion" and then just retorting with points so vague that no one can honestly discuss them is one of the most annoying things to see. e.g. "But there are surely valid concerns about their current implementation that could lead to improved solutions" If you think this surely must be the case, why don't you kick off the discussion with just one of those things you've considered? Back to his posted rebuttal on Github. I'm glad that he pointed out his record for supporting Node.js's CoC and using CoC in his own projects. But when he says: - "I have never made a case against the Node.js Code of Conduct." - But on Twitter, he implies that people aren't skeptical enough of CoC's and that he has "witnessed the negatives, again and again". Is his lack of criticism of Node.js CoC ("I have never made a case") because Node does it right? Or is it because he doesn't think it's worth it for him (in his position) to critique Node.js CoC (which is an understandable position). His rebuttal, when looking at the source material, doesn't feel direct enough to me. How can he claim that "the post I linked to was absolutely not an anti-Code-of-Conduct article" when the article starts off with: "In this article, I’ll explore the science of neurodiversity, and how campus speech codes and restrictive speech norms impose impossible expectations on the social sensitivity, cultural awareness, verbal precision, and self-control of many neurodivergent people." Concludes with: "Campus speech codes discriminate against neurominorities." Followed by: "In a future article, I’ll outline a legal strategy to use the ADA to eliminate campus speech codes that discriminate against neurominorities."* Reading the entire post a couple times over, if the professor believes that there are code of conducts that are not inherently discriminatory, he doesn't cite any evidence of their existence, or make an attempt to outline what an acceptable CoC looks like. ---- Putting aside all the other complaints leveled at Vagg -- not because I think they're unimportant, but because there's not enough info for outsiders to have an informed opinion -- I sincerely hope that Vagg and Node.js's governance can come to an amicable and transparent resolution at least on whether Node.js CoC is as good as it can be -- which seems reasonable if Vagg's public record of supporting it comes from his personal principles. I do believe that CoC's are both well-intentioned and worth fighting for. And I also agree that they are and will always be a hard problem, because they attempt to address and mitigate hard problems. I don't know what the resolution to Node.js's conflict is, but the last thing we need is yet another fucking blowup in which the entire debate gets reduced to the lazy polemic of "Objective programmers yelled at by SJW soft scientists"
_Marak_ 9y ago
It really makes me sad to think of the amount of hours Rod has spent on this instead of writing free software for all of us to use. Node got really popular, and with that came a whole group of people who are more interested in social justice instead of actual technical work. NPM is partially to blame for employing most of the people who are pushing to remove Rod.
- joe-mccann 9y ago
  I agree, Marak. To ALL of what you said.
bsder 9y ago
This story actually helped crystallize why I have been quite so knee jerk against things like Codes of Conduct. The whole point of a Code of Conduct, Homeowner's Association, or anything else which attempts to codify politeness, common sense, respect, etc. is to be used as a bureaucratic bludgeon against someone. And, while those may get put in place to get used against a single egregiously bad person, they then stick around to get used by the far more numerous petty political jerks.
- glasz 9y ago
  this. where can i vote a million times?
danjoc 9y ago
My momma had a way of dealing with these sorts of arguments. Everyone was punished. Look at these petty people. They all seem to have missed out on that sort of parenting. "Rod has his opinion on CoC and you have yours. Now play nice or you both go to bed early with no TV." I believe Rod and his detractors are all earning a different sort of punishment though. Who wants to hire a bunch of drama queens like this? It's too bad salary data isn't public like tweets. It would be interesting to see exactly how much internet drama negatively impacts a person's lifetime earning potential.
DannyBee 9y ago
I have never understood why open source projects have taken to trying to cargo cult dispute resolution and due process. They don't have the training, resources, or infrastructure to make it work. Really, they should just be realistic, and say "we're gonna look at what people say, make a completely arbitrary decision, and stick with it". Because that's what is really happening.
gcoda 9y ago
It is weird. But a lot of times "toxic" people need real protection. It is easy to get accused but not every one can argue or explain their personal views like Rod. Or even have strength to deal with it and not over react or get panic attack I am wondering about introvert geeks accused of "toxic behavior" silently sitting in the corner.
PrimHelios 9y ago
I've tried keeping up with what's been happening with Node, but I'm completely lost here. Could anyone summarize what's been happening or point me to a summarization?
mikerathbun 9y ago
The Node community seems to have more issues like this than others. This feels similar to the Nodevember drama where Douglas Crockford was uninvited to speak because a small group of people felt uncomfortable. What that community needs to understand is that speaking takes a lot of work and guts to do. Professionals are busy people and it’s a privilege to hear experts present. Same goes for contributing time and expertise to open source projects. If it becomes common to force people out for perceived wrong think than all that will be left are codes of conducts instead of codes of systems.
feduzi 9y ago
What is wrong with Node.js governance (except Rod's case)? Is there any list of such problems?

214 points by krlkv 9y ago

par 9y ago

Node community is going to argue its way into obscurity.

jamescostian 9y ago
While the snark of this comment may push it into obscurity by those who hate snarky comments, I totally agree. I was surprised we could even still have Node.js after the huge Node.js vs io.js debacle. I think all of these arguments are about important issues, but they also can give a very negative impression to outsiders (not to mention how insiders aware of all the facts may feel). That said, I am at least happy to see a he's going for a middle ground - he seems to be saying he won't step down, but he also looks like he's apologizing for anything he did wrong. Perhaps that's the best way to end the argument despite it not 100% pleasing either side
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  It's the only adult thing for him to do, considering that he didn't even know that people were offended.
- wolco 9y ago
  The Node.js vs io.js fork changed the way many looked at node and probably changed its growth axis. This is not the same and highlights why a code of conduct focusing on moral issues is not always the best path for a project/language.
  - jamescostian 9y ago
    Perhaps this is because my coffee rush ended and I'm currently in the post-coffee slump, but I don't follow what you're saying. Are you saying this event will/has not change(d) the way many looked at node as well as perhaps its growth axis? Also, when you mention these changes, I'm honestly not familiar with the stats - did they improve or decline? I also don't follow your second paragraph, but that could be simply because I missed what you were saying in your first
    - wolco 9y ago
      The first fork drove some away because some felt the ecosystem was fragmenting but many came back after they merged back or understood io.js advantages. Some new developers who might have choosen the language never came back. The growth curve was altered because of those events. This new split will not drive people away or stop the adoption in the same way. It's may cause some to put there changes in this new fork but this new fork will push changes to the node.js repo and this new fork will keep pulling changes from node.js.
- whipoodle 9y ago
  Perhaps counterintuitively, debate and dissent can make projects stronger. I definitely would say that was the case with the iojs fork and subsequent merge. This time I am much more unfamiliar with the goings-on, so I can't say if it will happen again.
- tomcam 9y ago
  Completely agreed, although the parent's post does not appear to be snark to me. I believe it is sincere, and I fear exactly the same outcome.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

nawgszy 9y ago

I don't particularly understand the claims against this man, but as this organization and its discussions happen (almost) entirely online [is this correct?], surely it must be incredibly obvious whether or not allegations brought against him are true or not?

jamescostian 9y ago
It seems it's not that simple. At least according to him, this wasn't all online, e.g. consider this quote: > I do not recall being asked to remove the names of the companies involved, I have only now seen that they have been edited out of my post. I cannot find any evidence that such a request was even made. This would have been a trivial matter on my part and I would have done it without argument if I had have seen such a request.
ebola1717 9y ago
As I understand, the question wasn't the veracity of the claims - I'm not sure those were contested. The question was whether they warranted his removal, and that comes down to how much you care about the Code of Conduct and believe team members are responsible for upholding its legitimacy, even if they disagree privately or internally.

wakeywakeywakey 9y ago

Having reviewed the relevant tweets/GitHub issues/blog posts, I feel most of the noise is generated by people who make it their mission to find things about which to be outraged. The NodeJS brand has the momentum necessary to build great things. If they squander it by cry-wolf-forking every time there is an internal disagreement, another JS engine (e.g. Chakra) will take the helm.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
KGIII 9y ago
It seems to me that when one seeks umbrage, one finds it.
AlexeyBrin 9y ago
> The NodeJS brand has the momentum necessary to build great things. If they squander it by cry-wolf-forking every time there is an internal disagreement, another JS engine (e.g. Chakra) will take the helm. Node.js is not an engine, Node.js uses the V8 engine (same engine that powers the Chrome browser). Technically you could use Node.js with the Chakra engine or other JavaScript engines.
- flanbiscuit 9y ago
  Didn't Microsoft do that? Created a version of Node using Chakra as proof of concept
  - BinaryIdiot 9y ago
    No, Microsoft modified node to allow drop in replacement of the JavaScript engine and then provided a Chakra backed version of node. It actually seemed to work pretty well and was pretty well received by the community. I believe others were attempting to do the same with the Firefox JS engine (SpiderMonkey? I can't remember what it's called) using the same base of work Microsoft created.

thwd 9y ago

Shame how such a cool project as node.js can drown in political fingerpointing. The only measurement that counts (in my opinion) is cold hard code contributions.

Domenic_S 9y ago
That sounds nice until you think about it -- what code are you writing? Who decided on the the feature you're writing? Who's writing the docs, and tutorials, and putting together conferences and paying bills and maintaining tax status and filing paperwork, and...?
jamescostian 9y ago
I fully agree that it sounds awful for a project to go down due to politics. But only paying attention to code reviews ignores how the community feels, as well as non-code work. For example, look at Rod Vagg's contributions to node: https://github.com/nodejs/node/commits?author=rvagg https://github.com/nodejs/node/commits?author=rvagg At least from the first page, it seems he's mostly working on documentation, specifically changelogs. But honestly, those changelogs are fantastic and definitely make a difference in my life (I don't want to comb through tons of commits to figure out what has changed between versions of Node). It might not be code per se, but the contribution is noticeable. Even if all you do is make people feel welcome in a community or bring people in, those are still worthwhile (new people can mean more code). And if you're an amazing programmer but make everyone want to leave the project, one can see how that would also affect the code (contributors leaving).
- nogbit 9y ago
  Usually, one who writes change logs is part of leadership deciding what should be worked on next, strategy, prioritizing and often times accountability as well. This is because they have a birds eye view of everything that is being worked on. Not easy and often thankless.
geofft 9y ago
Are you going to accept cold hard code contributions from someone who regularly writes excellent code and engages in political fingerpointing? Are you going to accept cold hard code contributions from someone who regularly writes excellent code and has the technical sense of the community about 80% of the time, and is at odds with the technical sense of the community 20% of the time, and regularly tells everyone involved in the 20% case that they're idiots and the project will fail if they don't merge the remaining 20% of their code (which is technically excellent too, just not implementing the design people want)? Are you going to accept cold hard code contributions from someone who generally writes good code that works on the first try but refuses to listen to code reviews? Are you going to accept cold hard code contributions under the wrong license? (Licenses are politics, not code!)

avaer 9y ago

Are long-winded quarrels and dysfunctions unique to node core, or is node core just transparent in documenting the making of the sausage?

Finnucane 9y ago
See also: all of human history.
mjpuser 9y ago
No, libreboot did as well: https://libreboot.org/news/unity.html https://libreboot.org/news/unity.html

geofft 9y ago

A bit of a thought experiment for myself: suppose that Rod were as terrible as the worst possible claims made against him. (I am confident he's not.) Suppose he were actively, consciously hoping to deceive and harm the Node community. (I am also confident he's not.) What sort of statement would he write? How much would it look like this one?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
adamrezich 9y ago
Once somebody has decided someone else's guilt, all following stimuli is interpreted through the lens of confirmation bias by default—and it takes an uncommonly truth-seeking mind to see past it. No matter how "heartfelt" or "thoughtful" a written or verbal apology is, it won't change any minds that've already been made up. This has been happening more and more recently, both online and in geopolitics.
- geofft 9y ago
  Eh, my personal reaction was that I was significantly more sympathetic to him after reading his writeup, so I was wondering if that's actually evidence-based or just emotion-based.
  - GenericsMotors 9y ago
    Please follow up on what was the supposed evidence against him and you will see his response was reasonable.
    - geofft 9y ago
      Oh yeah - his response was definitely reasonable if the facts are that the supposed evidence against him was trumped up and he's in the right. I'm just trying to figure out if his response is also what I'd expect to see if the facts are that the supposed evidence against him is completely accurate and that he's a toxic contributor who's trying to hurt the project.

Rjevski 9y ago

Does anyone have a TLDR about this story? I haven't had the time to follow all the drama.

kbenson 9y ago
Just reading through his response takes quite a while, and at the end you're left either accepting his interpretation and explanation, or you need to probably wade through some multiple of that content in disparate other sources to get the other side. Given the types of complaints and their subjective nature in some instances, I imagine you're probably looking at something close to 4-5 hours at least to get enough context to form an objective opinion of your own on this situation if you aren't coming into it with that background knowledge already. I'm not willing to invest that.
jdp23 9y ago
Here's the background: https://thenewstack.io/node-js-forked-complaints-repeated-harassment/ https://thenewstack.io/node-js-forked-complaints-repeated-ha...
wmf 9y ago
If there was a TLDR, would you believe it? What if there are two TLDRs that say completely opposite things? I don't follow Node, but I've seen the Bitcoin community get to a place where understanding the politics alone could be a full-time job. It's pretty sad.
gaius 9y ago
Honestly, GitHub gets more like Tumblr every day.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- PrimHelios 9y ago
  It's been that way for a while. One of the big reasons I up and moved away from it. I only use it to send PRs for Github hosted repos now. It's amazing how quickly an organization or platform can just die like this. Sure, it isn't dead dead, but it's descended into a pit of political BS and petty drama.

chis 9y ago

It's insane that we might reach a point where people install different branches of a project based on their political leanings... I think the main takeaway here is that a Code of Conduct, while valuable, has to be treated carefully. A lot of these projects agreed to a Code of Conduct just to appease a certain faction of their devs, and are now seeing that it can be used against them.

mayank 9y ago
There is absolutely no evidence that this fork will gain traction, because it contributes nothing new technically, so it's unlikely we'll reach the point you mention.
- GenericsMotors 9y ago
  But it has a PR open to bolster its "VALUES.md" file, as well as an issue for the most important subject of a logo. There is no doubt that this fork is future of server-side JS.
  - mattkrea 9y ago
    I truly hope we are about the high water mark for this kind of entirely irrelevant nonsense. It seems at least in this case the majority of the TSC had the sense to properly deem this ridiculous.
- chis 9y ago
  I'm not an expert, but it seems within the realm of possibility. Despite what hackernews thinks, the forkers have a somewhat reasonable argument, in that Vagg did violate the Code of Conduct (because it is extreme), and the committee voted to ignore it (because he's a valuable contributor). Morality aside, it calls the system into question if someone can violate established rules and get away with it because the judges disagree with the rules. Also, several members of their ruling committee left to make the fork. So it's not just a bunch of randoms, and they might be able to make some meaningful progress on their own.

andrewguenther 9y ago

> I have submitted myself to our Code of Conduct as a participant in this project. I have been involved in the application of our Code of Conduct. But I do not accept it as a sacred text that is above critique or even discussion. This, to me, is one of the most important lines of his response. I feel like critiques of CoCs and other related documents and processes coming from a white male are often interpreted as hostile. I would consider myself an ally, but I am afraid to weigh in on these kinds of discussions because differing opinions are so often manipulated into "hate" and "toxicity."

adamrezich 9y ago
> I feel like critiques of CoCs and other related documents and processes coming from a white male are often interpreted as hostile. At what point do we stop ignoring this inconvenient truth?
- retox 9y ago
  If you want to be taken seriously by these troublemaking outrage addicts as a while male, you need to get a weird haircut and to dye your hair a few different colors. Chunky glasses are a plus.
  - thehardsphere 9y ago
    And start calling yourself a woman.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Statements like yours do nothing to help matters.
    - ocfx 9y ago
      There is nothing to address or help. The people getting outraged are such an insignificant yet vocal minority. Their entire existence revolves around feeling victimized so they will use any opportunity to call attention to their victimhood.

GenericsMotors 9y ago

TLDR: core contributor displeases blue-haired SF nobodies, who fail to evict him from the project. They proceed to throw a temper-tantrum and create a useless fork which so far has done nothing but bike-shedding.

parzivalm 9y ago
While you most likely made that comment in jest. Stereotyping everyone into a category like "blue-haired SF nobodies" is rather offensive. Not saying I disagree about the temper-tantrum, but there was no reason to state it in the way you did.
- GenericsMotors 9y ago
  Yes, you are right, it was an unnecessary jab...and I apologise if this offends. The frustrated comment I gave is from the perspective of someone who is not an american; I don't see american californians as the moral authority of how open source software must be developed. It is a sad day when politics must be paramount when contributing to a foss project. If developers wanted this burden they'd need look no further than working in a soul-crushing multinational mega-corp. EDIT: please do not downvote the parent comment to this. He/she has commented to continue discussion, if you disagree please discuss, not downvote.
  - johnny22 9y ago
    > It is a sad day when politics must be paramount when contributing to a foss project Politics have always been the reason for me. It depends on what you call politics though. I got involved with FOSS initially because of the GPL. I then found a project whose aims I agreed with, and also had a welcoming environment. I might contribute a one off patch here or there to some other projects, but the ones I stay are such as those.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  It might be offensive but it sure is accurate.

bjt2n3904 9y ago

This has echoes of Title IX proceedings. From the account above. > Some time ago I received notification via email that there are complaints against me. No details were provided and I was informed that I would neither receive those details or be involved in the whatever process was to take place. Further, TSC members were not allowed to speak to me directly about these matters, including my work colleagues also on the TSC. I was never provided with an opportunity to understand the specific charges against me or be involved in any discussions on this topic from that point onward. From the article below, [1] > Right away, the accused is cautioned about confidentiality: s/he is warned not to discuss the pending complaint with colleagues or students. The accused will only learn of the accusations against them when s/he meets face-to-face with the local Title IX enforcement squad. Kangaroo court. [1] http://quillette.com/2017/08/24/survived-title-ix-star-chamber/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/24/survived-title-ix-star-chamb...

dmitrygr 9y ago

He is clear, logical, and reasonable. Poor guy, they will eat him alive.

whipoodle 9y ago
Oh stop. "They" who? There was already a vote to remove him and the motion was rejected. He has clearly declined to back down in the matter (I don't mean this negatively, I just mean he's not folding). Somehow I suspect he will be just fine.

orless 9y ago

What I'm completely missing in this discussion of Code of Conduct violation is a specific list of which actions violated which clauses in this Code of Conduct. I see a list of complaints, but for an outsider it is really hard to follow why these actions are considered to be CoC violations. Take this, for instance: "In [moderation repository discussion], 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. It also undercut the authority as moderators of other CTC/TSC members." Do you know how this reads? A case is being made against a "toxic" person who "repeatedly breaks CoC" and the first complaint against him is that he apologized to a contributor? Really? I just don't get this.

BinaryIdiot 9y ago
This was how I viewed it as well. Especially if what Rod said about not being notified about ANY of these items is true. This just appears someone compiled a list of things Rod screwed up, most of which he seemed to own and tried to fix. Maybe my impression is wrong but it just comes off as awful. I tried getting the entire story. I tried reading through the complaints, hunting down tweets and even reading Rod's side. But I eventually had to give it; it was going to take me hours to gain a small amount of context (some appears to be private / offline so I don't see a way to gain all of the necessary context to judge this situation). I get the feeling people are going to take their biases, one way or another, and run with what their side is because I don't see a quick way of wading through all of this.
- mdekkers 9y ago
  it just comes off as awful This is why have stopped contributing to OSS in a public fashion over 20 years ago. Nasty backstabbing politics (and in my case, there was actually a business purpose behind it, unlike most of this drama) People online are awful and the veil of anonymity and distance brings out the worst in people. Fuck that.
  - wmmm 9y ago

tomcam 9y ago

A code of conduct without transparency or due process seems more than dangerous to me. It is the stuff of kangaroo courts and star chambers.

Analemma_ 9y ago
James Snell's reasoning behind hiding the accusations inside the committee deliberations is theoretically sound: to keep Rod from getting harassed. I mean, under the current circumstances, a public, enumerated list of all your supposed crimes is pretty much guaranteed to bring a mob down on your head, and it would probably rocket to the top of Google searches for your name -- regardless of how the process turned out. But transparency in the process is also important. I don't have a good answer for this. It seems to be damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't.
- wmmm 9y ago
  > James Snell's reasoning behind hiding the accusations inside the committee deliberations is theoretically sound: to keep Rod from getting harassed. No. It is not. Saying that the specific accusations were removed to keep Rod from getting harassed suggests that it must have been something serious. Fortunately there's the Web Archive and you see what was the 3 most serious crimes that rod was accused of, and I quote: 1. "Rod’s first action was to apologize to a contributor who had been repeatedly moderated" 2. "Rod did not moderate himself when asked by another foundation director" 3. "Most recently Rod tweeted in support of an inflammatory anti-Code-of-Conduct article" Some of this is NOT EVEN TRUE - see Rod's response: https://medium.com/@rvagg/the-truth-about-rod-vagg-f063f6a53557 https://medium.com/@rvagg/the-truth-about-rod-vagg-f063f6a53... - as no evidence was ever provided that he was indeed asked to "moderate himself" (read: remove what he posted in a comment on GitHub which was not even ever accused of being incorrect). The third point is deliberately misleading and you can see for yourself - just see the tweet in question: https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841 https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841 Rod twitted no more no less but: "If you've never considered the potential downsides of codes of conduct, here's a good place to start" and posted a link to The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech by Geoffrey Miller - who is described by Wikipedia as: "Geoffrey F. Miller (born 1965 in Cincinnati, Ohio) is an American evolutionary psychologist, serving as an associate professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico and known for his expertise in sexual selection in human evolution, and for his views on the evolution through sexual selection of the human brain as sexual ornamentation." - see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Miller_(psychologist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Miller_(psychologist) As you can see, when someone is quoting a very interesting article of a known professor of psychology with the only comment of "If you've never considered the potential downsides of codes of conduct, here's a good place to start" and THEN someone else describes it as: "Rod tweeted in support of an inflammatory anti-Code-of-Conduct article" then it is a deliberate misinformation - but who will take the time to search for the real tweet, follow the article, read it and read about its author? No one. But the rest of the world is already describing Rod as "a person who has generally been standing in the way of making Node.js an inclusive project" because of the mysterious accusations that were later removed - see: https://github.com/ayojs/ayo/issues/4 https://github.com/ayojs/ayo/issues/4 Now, even if all of the accusations were indeed true and even if they were not blown out of proportion - it all boils down to 3 points: 1. he apologized someone for being censored 2. he didn't respond to self-censorship request fast enough and instead got censored by someone else 3. he twitted a link to an article on Twitter - a medium where no one can censor him unlike on GitHub, an article that (God forbid!) explains the exact same problems that we see here. See the original accusation and think for yourself - were the actual accusations removed to defend Rod from harassment or to make us think that it must have been serious misbehavior if there was a risk of harassment if anyone knew the facts involved? THAT is the real reason of never talking about the real "crimes". Think about it. See: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310 https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.co... > I mean, under the current circumstances, a public, enumerated list of all your supposed crimes is pretty much guaranteed to bring a mob down on your head, and it would probably rocket to the top of Google searches for your name -- regardless of how the process turned out. See? Even you assumed that those must be something that rod should be ashamed of. Meanwhile it was ONLY those 3 things that I described above. Now, when those were removed, people who google for his name will see articles like "Node.js forks again – this time it's a war of words over anti-sex-pest codes of conduct" and think that he must be a "sex-pest" because all of the actual accusations were (deliberately) removed.

bhouston 9y ago

Too much drama and polemics. My god he spent a lot of time on that response -- like hours. If you are writing long emails dealing with responses to drama, you need to move on. Not because you are at fault but the whole situation is screwed up and not worth your time. This is not a win-win situation, but an everyone lose situation. It means you and others are in the muck. Once you get a bunch of these accusations and long polemical post flying around it is nearly impossible to figure out who is right and who is wrong. The way people try to win here is ultra long polemical posts, secret discussions, accusations, character assassinations, etc. Non of which is at all productive. Being in the muck is a huge waste of time and energy for everyone. Find something that doesn't involve so much drama, life is short. I think one rule in software development is that once you are engaging in polemics, especially many hours of it per day, and not technical matters, something is sick about the situation -- get out of it.

eric_b 9y ago
Was "Polemic" in your word of the day email or something? Anyways, Rod's character is being assassinated on the internet. Prospective employers could Google his name and all they'll see is one side of things, unless he attempts to defend himself. Additionally - the people wielding the pitchforks want him to just give up. At some point it's important for people to take a stand if they believe in their principles - or maybe I'm just old fashioned.
- bhouston 9y ago
  This is a polemic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic It is not a means of trying to fix the issue, but rather a strong worded, accusatory, defensive blast at his critics by someone who believes they were wronged and others are at fault. This is not a "how to get to yes" type response, but rather a response that just inflames a situation, and causes everyone to dig in. There is going to be no winner going down this path, just losers all around and a lot of wasted energy and time. Yuk.
  - eric_b 9y ago

rdtsc 9y ago

It was pretty hard to discern what happened. A lot of text and veiled insinuations. He is how far I got: It was this article tweeted by Rod: http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-speech/ http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-spe... Which was noticed by a member of the community: https://twitter.com/captainsafia/status/887782785221615618 https://twitter.com/captainsafia/status/887782785221615618 Does that describe it? Maybe someone has a more clear summary One thing I noticed is that Node.js community seems to be followed by drama. Maybe it's just something I misunderstood, but I have observed Python, Erlang, Elixir, other communities around specific projects and libraries and I just don't see these many scandals there. In fact at one point when I reject Node.js as viable platform, the community scandals and seeming immaturity was one of top factors. What is it about this community that seems to attract this kind of behavior? And note I am not taking any sides in this case, as it is not clear what happened, it is just it looks messy to an outside developer looking in.

mdekkers 9y ago
What is it about this community that seems to attract this kind of behavior? I don't know about Node.js specifically, but I found when it is a project with a very high code-to-comms ration, this doesn't happen often. When there are a lot of non-coding "Open Source Groupies" involved in a project that start talking about "community engagement" and the like (or fledgling commercial entities, trying to cash in and influence), this shit isn't far behind. Good open source code speaks for itself, and doesn't require non-code contributions. Or boards. Or a "Governance Structure".
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
thehardsphere 9y ago
I do not know that I have the answer, but I do have a guess: Node.js is the only one of those projects whose development is primarily backed by a corporation. Culturally, this sort of drama can only take place in environments where the "shut up and show me the code" hacker ethos is either missing or superceeded by other concerns. When a single company has significant control of the project, its priorities will override the project's. Many companies are interested in widespread adoption of the project, which is how "inclusion" ends up working its way on the list of project priorities. Many companies are also averse to controversy, so they're inclined to simply cut someone loose if there is a problem just to make the problem go away. I could be wrong in the specific case of Node.js; the last time I paid attention to its governance was during the gendered code comment fiasco, where the contributor who was kicked out did not work for Joyent. But I have seen it in other open source contexts, most recently in the Drupal project.

zbentley 9y ago

Possibly off-topic: this is why GitHub, and GitLab, are both problematic platforms for online collaboration and community-building. There was once a list of grievances against this person here https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310 https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310. That list is no longer present; it has been redacted, and a reason for that redaction has been posted. As someone who has zero context for this issue, this makes it very hard for me to understand. This redaction is not something that can happen easily with source code. Comments and other "metadata" can be edited, permanently and without a view into history. That makes it very hard to trace the genealogy of discussions. Sure, you can rewrite git history and push, but that's a) less durable, because someone might have a fork/copy of the repo, and b) much less common by convention. I really don't like the tendency of GitHub/GitLab as platforms to encourage the "facebook style" of content authorship (what you posted is what you posted . . . until someone edits, it, then it never was that in the eyes of recent arrivals). Edit: I will probably accidentally type markdown into HN comments until the day I die.

pvorb 9y ago
Fortunately, somebody already took a snapshot and there's a way back: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310 https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.co...
- mdip 9y ago
  That was my first thought. A lot of people in the last several years have learned the hard way that for all practical purposes, the Internet tends to be forever. Sure, you may not be able to find that really useful utility you once used to parse regular expressions because the author stopped maintaining it, took the web site down and never released the source code[0], but that one time you[1] drank too much and tweeted something embarrassing will be discoverable on Google next to your name for decades after you die. [0] That's been a bugger of mine for a while -- if anyone knows where Rad Regular Expression Designer went, I'll e-mail you a soda. [1] Or when someone who shares your name and got arrested for theft (thank God he lives in a part of the country I have never visited).
9y ago

orless 9y ago

As a thought experiment imagine your manager asks you about the new node.js fork and whether you should switch to it. What would you say?

zbentley 9y ago
"Whatever you pay me to do."
thehardsphere 9y ago
If your manager is aware enough of the situation to know there is a fork, but is not aware enough to know that the fork is pure politics, it might be time to change managers. That is such an odd superposition of being simultaneously informed and not that one couldn't help but wonder what other strategic mistakes would happen.
- gaius 9y ago
  News of this has made mainstream tech news sites like El Reg. That's how I originally heard about it, I don't do much Github these days.
  - thehardsphere 9y ago
    If your manager is relying on mainstream news to inform decisions regarding their product's primary software dependency, it might be time to change managers.
    - orless 9y ago
      Since it is so serious, I promise I will change the imaginary managery from the thought experiment.

gred 9y ago

We need an updated Waldorf Statement [1]. "Members of the Node.js community deplore the action of the CTC men who have been cited for contempt by the Foundation board. We do not desire to prejudge their legal rights, but their actions have been a disservice to this project and have impaired their usefulness to the industry." "We will forthwith discharge or suspend without compensation those in our employ, and will not re-employ any of these men until such a time as he is acquitted on Twitter or has purged himself of contempt and declares under oath that he is not a Meritocracist." "On the broader issue of alleged sexist and non-inclusive elements in Silicon Valley, our members are likewise prepared to take positive action." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_Statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_Statement

dmitrij 9y ago

It's been quite a journey from a "great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches"[1] to this mess. Bureaucracy always wins in the end. [1] <http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/index.html#catbmain> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mattkrea 9y ago

Not surprised to see James Snell prominently involved in this. I've had bad feelings about this since the io.js group joined the foundation. This is upsetting having followed (and used) the project for so long.

ChuckMcM 9y ago

One of the things that is useful about due process is the right to confront your accusers and cross examine them under oath. Without those rights, it is difficult, if not impossible, to see justice done. Too often these important elements are missing, and Rod's statement "At no point have I been provided with an opportunity to answer to these complaints, correct the factual errors contained in them (see below), apologize and make amends where possible, or provide additional context that may further explain accusations against me." suggests that this lack of due process is present in this case as well. When "Somebody complained about you in a serious way, but we can't say who, or the substance of the complaint." is the standard against which the process is measured, then it leaves itself open for abuse.

GenericsMotors 9y ago
Indeed. And while the fork proclaims to be more inclusive and provide safe-space, how am I as a developer to feel safe when I am subject to kangaroo-court processes? And this is the reward for the effort of contributing time & code to a project? No, this is not inclusiveness.
kbenson 9y ago
This is, as I see it, an unfortunate side effect of vastly under valuing intent and over valuing individual interpretations and how they make people feel. There needs to be a balance, and when there's not you end up with problems. If that's what happened in this case, it might have resulted in fault being a much more nebulous concept to those people. It's possible he said some things which ended up hurting people's feelings. It's entirely possibly he had no intention his actions be interpreted as they were. In that case, if you over value intent, he did nothing wrong, and some people were being too sensitive. If you over value interpretation, he should have known better, and it's his responsibility to be on top of how his actions would be interpreted. Neither extreme is even remotely workable for all situations. The only thing that works in practice is that people accept that their wording sometimes needs changing based on common perceptions of it, and also that people may not have interpreted something as intended and intention matters as well. The only way to do this in practice is to actually communicate intent and interpretation when there's a problem so corrections can be made if they apply, and to both parties being open to accepting those corrections. This is obviously impossible if there is no communication.

danso 9y ago

I didn't know who Mr. Vagg was or his role in Node before reading his post, and without looking at posts/tweets from the people who opposed him, or having a clear grasp of the controversy, I still appreciated that he put the time toward a lengthy rebuttal. Writing a lot of words, for any reason, is a decent time investment. And it takes significantly more time to make it reasonably accommodating and (at least from my non-informed viewpoint) not obviously antagonistic. Whatever the merit of the arguments/complaints, I can at least appreciate that this is something important to him. Since the primary complaints against him involve details that he does not specify (and may not be easily findable after a lot of digging), I was interested in the 3rd listed complaint, which was about how he allegedly conducted himself on Twitter: > Most recently Rod tweeted in support of an inflammatory anti-Code-of-Conduct article. As a perceived leader in the project, it can be difficult for outsiders to separate Rod’s opinions from that of the project. Knowing the space he is participating in and the values of our community, Rod should have predicted the kind of response this tweet received. https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841* https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841* Point 1 of his rebuttal: > The post I linked to was absolutely not an anti-Code-of-Conduct article. It was an article written by an Associate Professor of Evolutionary Psychology at the University of New Mexico, discussing free speech in general and suggesting a case against speech codes in American university campuses. In sharing this, I hoped to encourage meaningful discussion regarding the possible shortcomings of some standard Code of Conduct language. My intent was not to suggest that the Node.js project should not have a Code of Conduct in place.* Point 4: > To re-state for further clarity, I have not made a case against Codes of Conduct in general, but rather, would like to see ongoing discussion about how such social guidelines could be improved upon, as they clearly have impact on open source project health. Here's his Tweet and its reply chain: https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841 https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841 I don't think the tweet rises to the level of demanding his removal. I don't know Vagg or his Twitter account so I don't know what his rhetorical style is (and I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt that Twitter is part-performance). But I didn't find his rebuttal to be convincing. It's not just that he tweeted out an article that may have annoyed/offended people. It's the way his tweet replies are what you'd expect from someone who just doesn't like CoC's, but is too politically savvy to say it, e.g. "And folks who think there's a possibility that CoCs may not be achieving their stated aims? No room for discussion on that?" "I accept that, but there are surely valid concerns about their current implementation that could lead to improved solutions" "If we're talking evidence, I'd love to see some solid data on the use of CoCs, it doesn't exist, we just have to have faith." "But I have witnessed the negatives, again and again, the most tragic are against those who don't naturally fit in" Even accepting that Twitter is just not ideal for substantive debate, it's hard to not feel he's being less than upfront. He wants an open discussion about CoC's. But every tweet has the tone of "But maybe CoCs can be bad? Why isn't there data? etc etc". For the sake of argument, I'll happily assume his premise -- that CoCs may be inherently flawed and lead to the injustice they purport to fight -- but why doesn't he describe an actual example? Calling for "open discussion" and then just retorting with points so vague that no one can honestly discuss them is one of the most annoying things to see. e.g. "But there are surely valid concerns about their current implementation that could lead to improved solutions" If you think this surely must be the case, why don't you kick off the discussion with just one of those things you've considered? Back to his posted rebuttal on Github. I'm glad that he pointed out his record for supporting Node.js's CoC and using CoC in his own projects. But when he says: - "I have never made a case against the Node.js Code of Conduct." - But on Twitter, he implies that people aren't skeptical enough of CoC's and that he has "witnessed the negatives, again and again". Is his lack of criticism of Node.js CoC ("I have never made a case") because Node does it right? Or is it because he doesn't think it's worth it for him (in his position) to critique Node.js CoC (which is an understandable position). His rebuttal, when looking at the source material, doesn't feel direct enough to me. How can he claim that "the post I linked to was absolutely not an anti-Code-of-Conduct article" when the article starts off with: "In this article, I’ll explore the science of neurodiversity, and how campus speech codes and restrictive speech norms impose impossible expectations on the social sensitivity, cultural awareness, verbal precision, and self-control of many neurodivergent people." Concludes with: "Campus speech codes discriminate against neurominorities." Followed by: "In a future article, I’ll outline a legal strategy to use the ADA to eliminate campus speech codes that discriminate against neurominorities."* Reading the entire post a couple times over, if the professor believes that there are code of conducts that are not inherently discriminatory, he doesn't cite any evidence of their existence, or make an attempt to outline what an acceptable CoC looks like. ---- Putting aside all the other complaints leveled at Vagg -- not because I think they're unimportant, but because there's not enough info for outsiders to have an informed opinion -- I sincerely hope that Vagg and Node.js's governance can come to an amicable and transparent resolution at least on whether Node.js CoC is as good as it can be -- which seems reasonable if Vagg's public record of supporting it comes from his personal principles. I do believe that CoC's are both well-intentioned and worth fighting for. And I also agree that they are and will always be a hard problem, because they attempt to address and mitigate hard problems. I don't know what the resolution to Node.js's conflict is, but the last thing we need is yet another fucking blowup in which the entire debate gets reduced to the lazy polemic of "Objective programmers yelled at by SJW soft scientists"

_Marak_ 9y ago

It really makes me sad to think of the amount of hours Rod has spent on this instead of writing free software for all of us to use. Node got really popular, and with that came a whole group of people who are more interested in social justice instead of actual technical work. NPM is partially to blame for employing most of the people who are pushing to remove Rod.

joe-mccann 9y ago
I agree, Marak. To ALL of what you said.

bsder 9y ago

This story actually helped crystallize why I have been quite so knee jerk against things like Codes of Conduct. The whole point of a Code of Conduct, Homeowner's Association, or anything else which attempts to codify politeness, common sense, respect, etc. is to be used as a bureaucratic bludgeon against someone. And, while those may get put in place to get used against a single egregiously bad person, they then stick around to get used by the far more numerous petty political jerks.

glasz 9y ago
this. where can i vote a million times?

danjoc 9y ago

My momma had a way of dealing with these sorts of arguments. Everyone was punished. Look at these petty people. They all seem to have missed out on that sort of parenting. "Rod has his opinion on CoC and you have yours. Now play nice or you both go to bed early with no TV." I believe Rod and his detractors are all earning a different sort of punishment though. Who wants to hire a bunch of drama queens like this? It's too bad salary data isn't public like tweets. It would be interesting to see exactly how much internet drama negatively impacts a person's lifetime earning potential.

DannyBee 9y ago

I have never understood why open source projects have taken to trying to cargo cult dispute resolution and due process. They don't have the training, resources, or infrastructure to make it work. Really, they should just be realistic, and say "we're gonna look at what people say, make a completely arbitrary decision, and stick with it". Because that's what is really happening.

gcoda 9y ago

It is weird. But a lot of times "toxic" people need real protection. It is easy to get accused but not every one can argue or explain their personal views like Rod. Or even have strength to deal with it and not over react or get panic attack I am wondering about introvert geeks accused of "toxic behavior" silently sitting in the corner.

PrimHelios 9y ago

I've tried keeping up with what's been happening with Node, but I'm completely lost here. Could anyone summarize what's been happening or point me to a summarization?

mikerathbun 9y ago

The Node community seems to have more issues like this than others. This feels similar to the Nodevember drama where Douglas Crockford was uninvited to speak because a small group of people felt uncomfortable. What that community needs to understand is that speaking takes a lot of work and guts to do. Professionals are busy people and it’s a privilege to hear experts present. Same goes for contributing time and expertise to open source projects. If it becomes common to force people out for perceived wrong think than all that will be left are codes of conducts instead of codes of systems.

feduzi 9y ago

What is wrong with Node.js governance (except Rod's case)? Is there any list of such problems?