3 ms·

Overblown how does it even compare? I've listed a series of links to the major events in chronological order. It's only a mistake if they recognize it as one,

by mythz 12y ago

Overblown how does it even compare? I've listed a series of links to the major events in chronological order. It's only a mistake if they recognize it as one, i.e. with a public apology of the same exposure as their original post. They have not done so, or recanted their post, or even recognized Ben's efforts since. Their treatment of contributors is especially relevant given they're now seeking to attract more contributors. Until then I have no reason to like Joyent or consider using any of their services.

outside1234 12y ago
Don't worry, Joyent will be out of business within a couple of years anyway as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft crush them.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
chc 12y ago
How does it compare? Well, the major events were: - Ben rudely rejected a commit - Ben rudely reverted a commit and rudely chided Isaac - Joyent rudely chided Ben - Ben explained that there had been a misunderstanding and expressed that his feelings were hurt Although Joyent's post rubbed me the wrong way, I have trouble seeing why you'd hate them forever for being rude to a contributor when you won't hate Ben forever for being rude and flippant toward multiple contributors. I don't think defining Ben by this incident the way Bryan did is reasonable, but I don't think defining Joyent by this incident is any more reasonable. It's one incident in the past, not a trend in either of their cases. People are imperfect.
- mythz 12y ago
  Ben didn't rudely reject the commit, he rejected a trivial commit to docs as per maintainer guidelines, he explains the thoughts behind his actions in his response: https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29568172 https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29568... As an active contributor he has to deal with hundreds of commits / pull requests / comments / etc. As a result, his actions are instinctive where he actually thought he was following the project's maintainers policy. Joyent's actions were pre-meditated, they took to their company's blog to publicly crucify him, labelling him an Asshole and that they would've fired him on the spot if he were only working for them (sadly he was in the unfortunate situation where he was only donating his OSS efforts for free). Whilst they were quick to classify this a fireable offense, they stopped short of saying they would no longer be accepting free OSS contributions from him in future. I can sympathize with Ben's response in that he thought he was doing the right thing in rejecting a trivial change, I can't however sympathize with Joyent's treatment in their public PR crucifixion, instead of what should've happened and dealt with any criticisms of their core contributors privately, and if one should be required, (although it really wasn't necessary) they could've made a joint statement on how future pull-requests like this are now welcomed. They have yet to recant their post, or admitted any fault or overreaction. Unlike Ben who in hindsight, wouldn't have reverted Isaac's commit. It's not only about the historic events, it's also about respect and perceived appreciation of valuable OSS contributions which they now seek to attract. AFAICT Joyent is the same company who stands by their post.
  - hga 12y ago
    "in contrast to the unfortunate situation where he was only donating his OSS efforts for free" It was stated in the Hacker News discussion that at the time he was working for a competitor, and quit as a result of this harassment. Which then prompted speculation about sinister motives. Me, I prefer avoiding communities with "corncobs", to use a term from the Antipatterns book.

by mythz 12y ago

outside1234 12y ago

Don't worry, Joyent will be out of business within a couple of years anyway as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft crush them.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

chc 12y ago

How does it compare? Well, the major events were: - Ben rudely rejected a commit - Ben rudely reverted a commit and rudely chided Isaac - Joyent rudely chided Ben - Ben explained that there had been a misunderstanding and expressed that his feelings were hurt Although Joyent's post rubbed me the wrong way, I have trouble seeing why you'd hate them forever for being rude to a contributor when you won't hate Ben forever for being rude and flippant toward multiple contributors. I don't think defining Ben by this incident the way Bryan did is reasonable, but I don't think defining Joyent by this incident is any more reasonable. It's one incident in the past, not a trend in either of their cases. People are imperfect.

mythz 12y ago
Ben didn't rudely reject the commit, he rejected a trivial commit to docs as per maintainer guidelines, he explains the thoughts behind his actions in his response: https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29568172 https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29568... As an active contributor he has to deal with hundreds of commits / pull requests / comments / etc. As a result, his actions are instinctive where he actually thought he was following the project's maintainers policy. Joyent's actions were pre-meditated, they took to their company's blog to publicly crucify him, labelling him an Asshole and that they would've fired him on the spot if he were only working for them (sadly he was in the unfortunate situation where he was only donating his OSS efforts for free). Whilst they were quick to classify this a fireable offense, they stopped short of saying they would no longer be accepting free OSS contributions from him in future. I can sympathize with Ben's response in that he thought he was doing the right thing in rejecting a trivial change, I can't however sympathize with Joyent's treatment in their public PR crucifixion, instead of what should've happened and dealt with any criticisms of their core contributors privately, and if one should be required, (although it really wasn't necessary) they could've made a joint statement on how future pull-requests like this are now welcomed. They have yet to recant their post, or admitted any fault or overreaction. Unlike Ben who in hindsight, wouldn't have reverted Isaac's commit. It's not only about the historic events, it's also about respect and perceived appreciation of valuable OSS contributions which they now seek to attract. AFAICT Joyent is the same company who stands by their post.
- hga 12y ago
  "in contrast to the unfortunate situation where he was only donating his OSS efforts for free" It was stated in the Hacker News discussion that at the time he was working for a competitor, and quit as a result of this harassment. Which then prompted speculation about sinister motives. Me, I prefer avoiding communities with "corncobs", to use a term from the Antipatterns book.