4 ms·

Honestly, this just makes io.js look even more childish. They're issuing ultimatums without any reasonable chance of success. There are completely logical tech

Honestly, this just makes io.js look even more childish. They're issuing ultimatums without any reasonable chance of success. There are completely logical technical reasons for forking node into io.js. There are even political changes which need to be made. But instead of trying to reasonably discuss the future of Node in a collaborative fashion, io.js has essentially issued an ultimatum which determines the entire governance structure of Node (including an entirely new management team). It's a desired coup, driven by an ultimatum, in the guise of a "proposal."

stingraycharles 12y ago
Yeah this whole issue can even be interpreted as being passive-agressive. Not saying that it is, but it just has a weird feeling surrounding it, almost as if there is a huge grudge between each other, and being overly political (correct). They are not really starting a discussion, this is more of a "you need to do everything different, or else..", as if they are now building up some evidence that they can later use to support their argument of "hey, /we/ tried to be compatible, but it is /their/ fault". But I'm probably reading too much into this.
- tracker1 12y ago
  Given that the majority of development contributers went over to io.js, it makes sense for the structure for technical decisions to more closely resemble io.js while yeilding marketting type things to the new Node.js organization.
petercooper 12y ago
Such a coup does rest on most of the 359 working groups voting in agreeance according to the provisional and not yet entirely decided, declared, or ratified by-laws of the tentative constitution of the current committee's purview of the project, however. My opinion? I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of the will of the working groups, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably isn't an easy way to tell if they'll vote one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage. I do see that there is a real dilemma here. In that, while it has been the policy to regard policy as a responsibility of Joyent and administration as a responsibility of Joyent's officials, the questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the policy of administration and the administration of policy, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts, or overlaps with, responsibility for the policy of the administration of policy.
- mintplant 12y ago
  Downvoted or not, this is now my favorite comment on the site. Bureaucratic surrealism is the best way to describe the situation.
  - mh- 12y ago
    I can't believe I read it to the end. After, I googled some of the text to see if this was a variant of some copypasta.
    - petercooper 12y ago
      It actually is. The last two paragraphs are reworkings of Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister, a British political comedy from the early 80s that mocked bureaucracy and politics (while scarily showing it for what it really was).

stingraycharles 12y ago

Yeah this whole issue can even be interpreted as being passive-agressive. Not saying that it is, but it just has a weird feeling surrounding it, almost as if there is a huge grudge between each other, and being overly political (correct). They are not really starting a discussion, this is more of a "you need to do everything different, or else..", as if they are now building up some evidence that they can later use to support their argument of "hey, /we/ tried to be compatible, but it is /their/ fault". But I'm probably reading too much into this.

tracker1 12y ago
Given that the majority of development contributers went over to io.js, it makes sense for the structure for technical decisions to more closely resemble io.js while yeilding marketting type things to the new Node.js organization.

petercooper 12y ago

Such a coup does rest on most of the 359 working groups voting in agreeance according to the provisional and not yet entirely decided, declared, or ratified by-laws of the tentative constitution of the current committee's purview of the project, however. My opinion? I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of the will of the working groups, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably isn't an easy way to tell if they'll vote one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage. I do see that there is a real dilemma here. In that, while it has been the policy to regard policy as a responsibility of Joyent and administration as a responsibility of Joyent's officials, the questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the policy of administration and the administration of policy, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts, or overlaps with, responsibility for the policy of the administration of policy.

mintplant 12y ago
Downvoted or not, this is now my favorite comment on the site. Bureaucratic surrealism is the best way to describe the situation.
- mh- 12y ago
  I can't believe I read it to the end. After, I googled some of the text to see if this was a variant of some copypasta.
  - petercooper 12y ago
    It actually is. The last two paragraphs are reworkings of Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister, a British political comedy from the early 80s that mocked bureaucracy and politics (while scarily showing it for what it really was).