3 ms·
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 inar
by 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 agoThe 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 agoGod 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 agoA 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 agoOh, 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.