6 ms·

As a Joyent engineer, I feel qualified to field this one. tl;dr: you couldn't be more wrong. The long version requires a crucial observation: this wasn't one

As a Joyent engineer, I feel qualified to field this one. tl;dr: you couldn't be more wrong. The long version requires a crucial observation: this wasn't one simple mistake, made in haste, ignorance, or confusion. This was a deliberate action to revert to exclusionary language. Speculating on the precise motivation strikes me as pointless; it's the action itself that is problematic. At Joyent, I have room to make mistakes, and enough respect among my colleagues that I can take corrections without misgivings. Deliberate and repeated "mistakes" on my part would have consequences (but surely that's the literal definition of a problem employee). In case you aren't already one step ahead of me, here is the corollary: I am protected from the deliberate and repeatedly hostile actions of others. So: the ability (even obligation) to speak your mind, listen to others, and be protected from bullying, exclusionary behaviour? That, my friend, is what you call security.

waterlion 13y ago
Do we know absolutely, for sure, that this is what happened? From the revert, bnoorhuis clearly didn't know that Bert had signed it off. To me it looks like there was a bit of confusion, and there's not enough info to say either way. As I said elsewhere, the error bars on this look far too wide. Given even the remotest possibility that this was a confusion, such a public and childish telling off seems entirely unreasonable. I appreciate you are an employee and are qualified to speak as such. But as an outsider (and a feminist), I won't touch Joyent with a bargepole after this.
- jpll 13y ago
  As far as I understood from Twitter, the commit wasn't originally signed off. @piscisaureus signed it afterwards and forced pushed it: https://twitter.com/piscisaureus/status/407022200290410496 https://twitter.com/piscisaureus/status/407022200290410496
  - waterlion 13y ago
    What a mess this whole thing is. I'm looking forward to a level-headed explanation of all of this in a few days. It's a pity the witch-hunt happened before there's been meaningful dialogue to find out exactly what the situation is (name-calling and posturing doesn't count as meaningful dialogue).
teacup50 13y ago
The fact that you don't see Bryan Cantrill's public shaming as deliberately and extremely hostile is astounding. It was misleading, it was predicated on a straw man that wasn't remotely supported by the evidence, and it was mind-boggling aggressive. The permanent social and business ramifications for everyone involved are substantial, and if Bryan Cantrill were my employee, I'd have him posting an apology or submitting his resignation. I'm not sure what sort of culture you have there at Joyent, but if it's a monoculture that fully supports this sort of grossly disproportionate public escalation and aggressive behavior from anyone, especially under the company's name, then I'm happy to keep Joyent off the short list of companies I'd consider working for or with. Surveying the facts, I'm far more inclined to believe that this event simply provided you with a convenient self-righteous excuse for Joyent to stretch the truth enough to hang what you considered to be a troublesome contributor (and competitor) with his own rope. [edit] On top of all this, I've had to fire a number of people over the years, and always, regardless of how justified it was, I did so with a heavy heart. The fact that Bryan Cantrill would speak to gleefully of firing anyone is, if nothing else, a testament to the myopia of self-righteousness.
- jpll 13y ago
  speaking of monoculture: https://twitter.com/bcantrill/status/407228751731101696 https://twitter.com/bcantrill/status/407228751731101696
jpll 13y ago
Except it all seems @bcantrill used @joyent's blog to win battle against an opponent. http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/18/can-this-startup-steal-node-from-joyent-vcs-bet-8m-on-it http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/18/can-this-startup-steal-nod... Exclusionary language is the excuse for publicly shaming an individual seen as a pain in the ass
- jpll 13y ago
  If you look carefully at https://gist.github.com/trevnorris/7729322/#comment-961709 https://gist.github.com/trevnorris/7729322/#comment-961709 It's clear @bcantrill does all what it takes to keep Ben Noordhuis out. It's so obvious I don't understand why people seem to be so blind
  - rok3 13y ago
    The hipocrisy in his response is ridiculous. - says people should be judged by actions not intent. - writes a post that blows things way out of proportional and implies Ben is a sexist starting with the sensational title. - then says that Joyent doesn't need to clarify their actions because their intent was to focus on Ben's actions

waterlion 13y ago

Do we know absolutely, for sure, that this is what happened? From the revert, bnoorhuis clearly didn't know that Bert had signed it off. To me it looks like there was a bit of confusion, and there's not enough info to say either way. As I said elsewhere, the error bars on this look far too wide. Given even the remotest possibility that this was a confusion, such a public and childish telling off seems entirely unreasonable. I appreciate you are an employee and are qualified to speak as such. But as an outsider (and a feminist), I won't touch Joyent with a bargepole after this.

jpll 13y ago
As far as I understood from Twitter, the commit wasn't originally signed off. @piscisaureus signed it afterwards and forced pushed it: https://twitter.com/piscisaureus/status/407022200290410496 https://twitter.com/piscisaureus/status/407022200290410496
- waterlion 13y ago
  What a mess this whole thing is. I'm looking forward to a level-headed explanation of all of this in a few days. It's a pity the witch-hunt happened before there's been meaningful dialogue to find out exactly what the situation is (name-calling and posturing doesn't count as meaningful dialogue).

teacup50 13y ago

The fact that you don't see Bryan Cantrill's public shaming as deliberately and extremely hostile is astounding. It was misleading, it was predicated on a straw man that wasn't remotely supported by the evidence, and it was mind-boggling aggressive. The permanent social and business ramifications for everyone involved are substantial, and if Bryan Cantrill were my employee, I'd have him posting an apology or submitting his resignation. I'm not sure what sort of culture you have there at Joyent, but if it's a monoculture that fully supports this sort of grossly disproportionate public escalation and aggressive behavior from anyone, especially under the company's name, then I'm happy to keep Joyent off the short list of companies I'd consider working for or with. Surveying the facts, I'm far more inclined to believe that this event simply provided you with a convenient self-righteous excuse for Joyent to stretch the truth enough to hang what you considered to be a troublesome contributor (and competitor) with his own rope. [edit] On top of all this, I've had to fire a number of people over the years, and always, regardless of how justified it was, I did so with a heavy heart. The fact that Bryan Cantrill would speak to gleefully of firing anyone is, if nothing else, a testament to the myopia of self-righteousness.

jpll 13y ago
speaking of monoculture: https://twitter.com/bcantrill/status/407228751731101696 https://twitter.com/bcantrill/status/407228751731101696

jpll 13y ago

Except it all seems @bcantrill used @joyent's blog to win battle against an opponent. http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/18/can-this-startup-steal-node-from-joyent-vcs-bet-8m-on-it http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/18/can-this-startup-steal-nod... Exclusionary language is the excuse for publicly shaming an individual seen as a pain in the ass

jpll 13y ago
If you look carefully at https://gist.github.com/trevnorris/7729322/#comment-961709 https://gist.github.com/trevnorris/7729322/#comment-961709 It's clear @bcantrill does all what it takes to keep Ben Noordhuis out. It's so obvious I don't understand why people seem to be so blind
- rok3 13y ago
  The hipocrisy in his response is ridiculous. - says people should be judged by actions not intent. - writes a post that blows things way out of proportional and implies Ben is a sexist starting with the sensational title. - then says that Joyent doesn't need to clarify their actions because their intent was to focus on Ben's actions