4 ms·

1. There are SO MANY open source projects that are "owned" by companies. It's nothing new. 2. I'm so tired of hearing about the supposed "drama" of the NodeJS

1. There are SO MANY open source projects that are "owned" by companies. It's nothing new. 2. I'm so tired of hearing about the supposed "drama" of the NodeJS community from people who don't understand open source projects. For one, I checked the guy's github yesterday and he still contributes to node, so his "taking my ball and going home" bit was a bluff. More importantly, though, is the point that this person went out of his way to stop an open source contribution that he personally didn't agree with. He did, in effect, more work by declining the pull request and injecting his own beliefs into a community project. I feel it needs to be said that I applaud Joyent's position on gender inclusiveness since we clearly have a LONG way to go to get people to start caring about issues like this.

iends 13y ago
I think you really should really reexamine the situation that occurred if you think the person "went of of his way to stop an open source contribution that he personally didn't agree with." That is not what happened. Either you don't understand what happened or you are intentionally spreading FUD. Ben rejected the pull request because there was no CLA from the contributor. It was a one line change, but it didn't adhere to the process established by the node core. (He's also English as a second language and didn't see how this could be offensive). Another contributor, Isaac, entered the fray and accepted the pull request (it's not clear if there was a signed CLA at this point), subverting the authority of the other core contributor. At this point it becomes a question of authority between two core contributors one working for Joyent and one for Strongloop. It seems there was already something negative between the developers and the companies before this occurred. Out of anger of his authority being subverted Ben reverted the pull request again. Isaac didn't communicate with Ben, and Ben was angry. Both handled it poorly, but Ben comes out looking poorly because the internet hate mob doesn't think before acting.
- untog 13y ago
  Ben rejected the pull request because there was no CLA from the contributor. Funny, because what he said was: "Sorry, not interested in trivial changes like that." https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29538615 https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29538...
  - victorhooi 13y ago
    Yes, and that was valid from his POV, and from what I understand, consistent with his past behaviour regarding minor grammatical/spelling mistakes. And I get that - for some projects, the sheer overhead of every single person arguing their grammatical opinion on internal docs just wouldn't be worth it. And yes, I know, for some people this was a major travesty on our social fabric, and the social justice warriors came out in full force about how it was apparently incredibly sexist on Ben's part. However, that was basically just bike-shedding. This entire debacle should have sorted out graciously between the parties involved - there was no need to turn it into a public freakshow that it became. Look, yes, it would be nice if we used non-gender specific pronouns everywhere. Let's change the doc standards to reflect that. But going on a retroactive witch-hunt hurts nobody. In fact, I'd venture that this little crusade probably did more to hurt getting females into technology, when they see how incredibly immature and petty we "boys" are, and how they'll always be seen in terms of their gender and "protected" rather that just being another geek. Finally, the fact that the damn guy volunteers and mentors aspiring developers - including gasp females - makes the lynch mob look even worse.
    - erichocean 13y ago
      how they'll always be seen in terms of their gender and "protected" rather that just being another geek My wife hates the Nineteenth Amendment for that exact reason: the idea that men "gave" women the right to vote (and thus, in principle, could take it away again) frustrates her. She'd rather a new Constitution that cleans up all the fixes we've made through the amendment process that treats men, women, races, and sexual orientations all equally. It's hard to argue that wouldn't be an improvement over what we have now. That's actually a problem with things like "Girls Who Code" or whatever it's called: while getting girls coding, it also introduces the idea that girls don't code, and that when they do, it's "novel". Anyway, I don't have a solution for that (and I'm not opposed to those efforts in any way), it's just something to keep in mind.
      - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
        > It's hard to argue that wouldn't be an improvement over what we have now. I mean, I guess it's ok if you want to speak on behalf of your wife, but now you're just putting words in everyone's mouth. Enough already. I strongly disagree with creating a new Constitution; we have so many people in Congress looking to take away our rights that we'd be lucky if our First Amendment rights stayed intact. Imagine members of Congress trading abortion rights for non-establishment. It would be a shit show on every level.

iends 13y ago

I think you really should really reexamine the situation that occurred if you think the person "went of of his way to stop an open source contribution that he personally didn't agree with." That is not what happened. Either you don't understand what happened or you are intentionally spreading FUD. Ben rejected the pull request because there was no CLA from the contributor. It was a one line change, but it didn't adhere to the process established by the node core. (He's also English as a second language and didn't see how this could be offensive). Another contributor, Isaac, entered the fray and accepted the pull request (it's not clear if there was a signed CLA at this point), subverting the authority of the other core contributor. At this point it becomes a question of authority between two core contributors one working for Joyent and one for Strongloop. It seems there was already something negative between the developers and the companies before this occurred. Out of anger of his authority being subverted Ben reverted the pull request again. Isaac didn't communicate with Ben, and Ben was angry. Both handled it poorly, but Ben comes out looking poorly because the internet hate mob doesn't think before acting.

untog 13y ago
Ben rejected the pull request because there was no CLA from the contributor. Funny, because what he said was: "Sorry, not interested in trivial changes like that." https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29538615 https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29538...
- victorhooi 13y ago
  Yes, and that was valid from his POV, and from what I understand, consistent with his past behaviour regarding minor grammatical/spelling mistakes. And I get that - for some projects, the sheer overhead of every single person arguing their grammatical opinion on internal docs just wouldn't be worth it. And yes, I know, for some people this was a major travesty on our social fabric, and the social justice warriors came out in full force about how it was apparently incredibly sexist on Ben's part. However, that was basically just bike-shedding. This entire debacle should have sorted out graciously between the parties involved - there was no need to turn it into a public freakshow that it became. Look, yes, it would be nice if we used non-gender specific pronouns everywhere. Let's change the doc standards to reflect that. But going on a retroactive witch-hunt hurts nobody. In fact, I'd venture that this little crusade probably did more to hurt getting females into technology, when they see how incredibly immature and petty we "boys" are, and how they'll always be seen in terms of their gender and "protected" rather that just being another geek. Finally, the fact that the damn guy volunteers and mentors aspiring developers - including gasp females - makes the lynch mob look even worse.
  - erichocean 13y ago
    how they'll always be seen in terms of their gender and "protected" rather that just being another geek My wife hates the Nineteenth Amendment for that exact reason: the idea that men "gave" women the right to vote (and thus, in principle, could take it away again) frustrates her. She'd rather a new Constitution that cleans up all the fixes we've made through the amendment process that treats men, women, races, and sexual orientations all equally. It's hard to argue that wouldn't be an improvement over what we have now. That's actually a problem with things like "Girls Who Code" or whatever it's called: while getting girls coding, it also introduces the idea that girls don't code, and that when they do, it's "novel". Anyway, I don't have a solution for that (and I'm not opposed to those efforts in any way), it's just something to keep in mind.
    - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
      > It's hard to argue that wouldn't be an improvement over what we have now. I mean, I guess it's ok if you want to speak on behalf of your wife, but now you're just putting words in everyone's mouth. Enough already. I strongly disagree with creating a new Constitution; we have so many people in Congress looking to take away our rights that we'd be lucky if our First Amendment rights stayed intact. Imagine members of Congress trading abortion rights for non-establishment. It would be a shit show on every level.