5 ms·

From Joyent's blog post [1]: > But while Isaac is a Joyent employee, Ben is not—and if he had been, he wouldn't be as of this morning: to reject a pull request

From Joyent's blog post [1]: > But while Isaac is a Joyent employee, Ben is not—and if he had been, he wouldn't be as of this morning: to reject a pull request that eliminates a gendered pronoun on the principle that pronouns should in fact be gendered would constitute a fireable offense for me and for Joyent. For comparison, here is bnoordhuis's comment from the pull request thread [2] that the post is referencing: > Sorry, not interested in trivial changes like that. Honestly, Joyent's post strikes me as a horrible overreaction and attempt at character assassination over what should have been a small matter. Rejecting pull requests that only correct typos or comments has been standard practice for the Node.js project for a long time now--this isn't the first one to be closed for being too small of a change, a fact that Joyent, as the main driver of the project, should be aware of. bnoordhuis followed standard procedure, yet Joyent tries to cast him as being intentionally sexist and a terrible person. Seeing such immature behavior coming from their corporate blog--calling him an "asshole", saying he should be fired, insinuating that they wish they could kick him out of the project--has pretty much destroyed the respect I had for the company. [1] https://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun https://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun [2] https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015 https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015

Lazare 13y ago
Wow, Joyent comes across very poorly. For the record, I support using gender-neutral pronouns; I actually support the original pull request. But it seems inarguable that: 1. It's a minor change 2. Node.js, like many projects, rejects minor changes 3. It was rejected for being a minor change 4. Joyent reacted amazingly unprofessionally In particular, I have concerns both with the way the initial decision was reversed (this seems like an abuse of Joyent's power over the project), and in particular with their remarkable blog post. Following a project's guidelines on accepting a commit is "gobsmackingly inappropriate"? Really? I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that attitude from someone in Joyent's position. And as for their pointed comment that they would have fired Ben if he worked for them...really? Boy do they sound like a barrel of fun to work for. "Follow the rules or be fired; unless it's a rule we decide isn't important, then we'll fire you if you do follow it. Have fun guessing which one is which!" I use Node.js professionally, and I will continue to do so for now. My opinion of Joyent, however, is dropping rapidly. Node.js will either grow beyond them or die. Edit: Rephrased the language to better reflect my opinion. Had too much hyperbole in the first draft.
- CyruzDraxs 13y ago
  The contributor also had not signed a CLA, and the commit message did not follow the guidelines. Ben should have been more explicit in his initial post about his reason for denying the commit. Isaac shouldn't have merged the pull, which violated the guidelines. The community shouldn't have raised their pitchforks without first seeking an explanation. Everyone involved could use a dose of professionalism.
  - Lazare 13y ago
    God yes. It feels like everyone involved went out of their way to make things worse at every step. An invalid but well-meaning pull request? Better give it a cryptic rejection. A rejected by politically sensitive pull request? Better pull rank and force its acceptance in violation of project guidelines. Main project backers violating project guidelines? Better reverse their commits with a passive aggressive commit message. Project lead reversing commits? Better post a vitriolic blog post about how he is a terrible asshole who should be fired! Would it have been that hard to bounce a couple of emails back and forth, and sort it all out in private? Christ. (Add good point about the CLA. Although needing a CLA to change a pronoun in the docs seems silly, I think it highlights that a pull request was the wrong tool for this.)
    - CyruzDraxs 13y ago
      A signed CLA may seem silly, but there were changes in code comments. That makes code ownership ambiguous, and the law doesn't tend to play nice with ambiguity.
      - Lazare 13y ago
        Oh, I know. You shouldn't play games with code ownership; CLAs are important for any commit. I was just thinking that this could have been handled better via an email to a committer who already had a signed CLA. Would have sidestepped a lot of drama. Oh well.
austinz 13y ago
Ben was called a bigot and his rejection of the pull request was ascribed to the "principle that pronouns should in fact be gendered" (from the Joyent blog). The problem is, all of this is being extrapolated from his statement "sorry, not interested in trivial changes like that", which could be seen as a flippant dismissal of gender issues in the tech industry - or it could be simply a curt response acknowledging standard practice ('rejecting pull requests that only correct typos or comments'). Only Ben really knows Ben's intention - and he didn't clarify it in either of the long comment threads on github. (If he did make explicitly misogynistic follow-up comments please correct me; I didn't see any myself.) Maybe he was insensitive or tone-deaf, maybe he should have made an exception (because perhaps commits like these have some sort of special significance that goes beyond simply fixing spacing issues in comments), maybe people should have talked to him and explained why others might have found his actions questionable - and, some of this did happen - but the hysterical response is really sort of scary. Wikipedia has an "assume good faith" principle - maybe something similar would be a good idea for open-source communities, so that problems and differences in opinion could be resolved before escalation into a screaming match?
- piscisaureus 13y ago
  Well, there you go: https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29568172 https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29568...
  - Lazare 13y ago
    Joyent is looking worse and worse as the dust settles.
    - austinz 13y ago
      Ben: "If this is what I have to deal with, then I'd just as rather do something else." After this all-smoke-no-flame shitstorm, one big company carrying out a character assassination and publicly wishing they could fire him and his current employer dangling a Damocles' sword over his job...I really can't blame him.
quinnchr 13y ago
Looking through the closed pull requests it does not seem like rejecting typo pull requests is in fact standard practice. There are multiple accepted pull requests that merely fix typos. Additionally, if you look at the context of the full pull request he's commenting on, he completely ignores the dozen's of other comments on the issue, simply stating they're rejecting it because it's trivial. I'm not saying he's necessarily sexist, but he clearly doesn't care about combating sexism. Is it really that hard to say "we're not accepting this because a typo is not a significant enough change." Calling the change trivial is literally calling out using ungendered language as trivial. I promise you it is not trivial to a lot of people.
- aaronem 13y ago
  > he clearly doesn't care about combating sexism Well, that is his job, of course.
BrainInAJar 13y ago
> Sorry, not interested in trivial changes like that. No, it's not simply the original rejection of the PR, it was the subsequent reversion of the PR's acceptance
anatoly 13y ago
The post at Joyent is eye-popping and Bryan Cantrill comes across as a horrible person. In just four sanctimonious, power-hungry and smug paragraphs he makes Joyent look like a toxic entity I would never want to deal with.

Lazare 13y ago

Wow, Joyent comes across very poorly. For the record, I support using gender-neutral pronouns; I actually support the original pull request. But it seems inarguable that: 1. It's a minor change 2. Node.js, like many projects, rejects minor changes 3. It was rejected for being a minor change 4. Joyent reacted amazingly unprofessionally In particular, I have concerns both with the way the initial decision was reversed (this seems like an abuse of Joyent's power over the project), and in particular with their remarkable blog post. Following a project's guidelines on accepting a commit is "gobsmackingly inappropriate"? Really? I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that attitude from someone in Joyent's position. And as for their pointed comment that they would have fired Ben if he worked for them...really? Boy do they sound like a barrel of fun to work for. "Follow the rules or be fired; unless it's a rule we decide isn't important, then we'll fire you if you do follow it. Have fun guessing which one is which!" I use Node.js professionally, and I will continue to do so for now. My opinion of Joyent, however, is dropping rapidly. Node.js will either grow beyond them or die. Edit: Rephrased the language to better reflect my opinion. Had too much hyperbole in the first draft.

CyruzDraxs 13y ago
The contributor also had not signed a CLA, and the commit message did not follow the guidelines. Ben should have been more explicit in his initial post about his reason for denying the commit. Isaac shouldn't have merged the pull, which violated the guidelines. The community shouldn't have raised their pitchforks without first seeking an explanation. Everyone involved could use a dose of professionalism.
- Lazare 13y ago
  God yes. It feels like everyone involved went out of their way to make things worse at every step. An invalid but well-meaning pull request? Better give it a cryptic rejection. A rejected by politically sensitive pull request? Better pull rank and force its acceptance in violation of project guidelines. Main project backers violating project guidelines? Better reverse their commits with a passive aggressive commit message. Project lead reversing commits? Better post a vitriolic blog post about how he is a terrible asshole who should be fired! Would it have been that hard to bounce a couple of emails back and forth, and sort it all out in private? Christ. (Add good point about the CLA. Although needing a CLA to change a pronoun in the docs seems silly, I think it highlights that a pull request was the wrong tool for this.)
  - CyruzDraxs 13y ago
    A signed CLA may seem silly, but there were changes in code comments. That makes code ownership ambiguous, and the law doesn't tend to play nice with ambiguity.
    - Lazare 13y ago
      Oh, I know. You shouldn't play games with code ownership; CLAs are important for any commit. I was just thinking that this could have been handled better via an email to a committer who already had a signed CLA. Would have sidestepped a lot of drama. Oh well.

austinz 13y ago

Ben was called a bigot and his rejection of the pull request was ascribed to the "principle that pronouns should in fact be gendered" (from the Joyent blog). The problem is, all of this is being extrapolated from his statement "sorry, not interested in trivial changes like that", which could be seen as a flippant dismissal of gender issues in the tech industry - or it could be simply a curt response acknowledging standard practice ('rejecting pull requests that only correct typos or comments'). Only Ben really knows Ben's intention - and he didn't clarify it in either of the long comment threads on github. (If he did make explicitly misogynistic follow-up comments please correct me; I didn't see any myself.) Maybe he was insensitive or tone-deaf, maybe he should have made an exception (because perhaps commits like these have some sort of special significance that goes beyond simply fixing spacing issues in comments), maybe people should have talked to him and explained why others might have found his actions questionable - and, some of this did happen - but the hysterical response is really sort of scary. Wikipedia has an "assume good faith" principle - maybe something similar would be a good idea for open-source communities, so that problems and differences in opinion could be resolved before escalation into a screaming match?

piscisaureus 13y ago
Well, there you go: https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29568172 https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29568...
- Lazare 13y ago
  Joyent is looking worse and worse as the dust settles.
  - austinz 13y ago
    Ben: "If this is what I have to deal with, then I'd just as rather do something else." After this all-smoke-no-flame shitstorm, one big company carrying out a character assassination and publicly wishing they could fire him and his current employer dangling a Damocles' sword over his job...I really can't blame him.

quinnchr 13y ago

Looking through the closed pull requests it does not seem like rejecting typo pull requests is in fact standard practice. There are multiple accepted pull requests that merely fix typos. Additionally, if you look at the context of the full pull request he's commenting on, he completely ignores the dozen's of other comments on the issue, simply stating they're rejecting it because it's trivial. I'm not saying he's necessarily sexist, but he clearly doesn't care about combating sexism. Is it really that hard to say "we're not accepting this because a typo is not a significant enough change." Calling the change trivial is literally calling out using ungendered language as trivial. I promise you it is not trivial to a lot of people.

aaronem 13y ago
> he clearly doesn't care about combating sexism Well, that is his job, of course.

BrainInAJar 13y ago

> Sorry, not interested in trivial changes like that. No, it's not simply the original rejection of the PR, it was the subsequent reversion of the PR's acceptance

anatoly 13y ago

The post at Joyent is eye-popping and Bryan Cantrill comes across as a horrible person. In just four sanctimonious, power-hungry and smug paragraphs he makes Joyent look like a toxic entity I would never want to deal with.