Slashdot Mirror
Node.js Forked Again Over Complaints of Unresponsive Leadership (thenewstack.io)
New submitter Kant shares a report: The codebase for popular Node.js JavaScript runtime has been forked again -- the second time in less than three years -- with a growing number of contributors charging that the Technical Steering Committee (TSC) leadership is ignoring repeated violations of the project's code of conduct. The new project, called Ayo will be managed under an open governance model. The complaints centered around ongoing behavior of NodeSource Director of Engineering, and Node.js TSC member Rod Vagg. The TSC received multiple complaints from Node.js members about a Tweet from Vagg promoting a Men's Rights Activist-slanted article, one that cast doubt on the validity of project Code-of-Conducts. In that Tweet, Vagg commented "If you've never considered the potential downsides of codes of conduct, here's a good place to start." [...] On August 21, The TSC voted on whether or not to remove Vagg from its ranks. Of the 10 TSC members who voted, 60 percent voted against removing Rod from the TSC and 60 percent voted against asking Rod to voluntarily resign. That the TSC voted to keep Vagg on the committee inflamed others in the project. One committee member, Myles Borins, resigned in protest. The decision to keep Vagg "undermines our Conduct Guidelines, drives away potential contributors, and in my opinion undermines the Committee's ability to govern," he wrote in a blog post. In a post further explaining the need for the forked Ayo project, developer Rudolf Olah explained that "Driving away contributors can be fatal in the open source world where most developers are essentially using their free time and volunteering to contribute. It is already difficult enough to attract contributors to smaller projects and larger projects, such as Node.js, need to be careful to make all contributors feel welcome."
Now would be the time for that "open sores" troll to post something. Alas, all we have left is that "APPS!!!" guy.
>> forked again -- the second time in less than three years -- with...contributors charging that...leadership is ignoring repeated violations of the project's code of conduct
Enterprise-ready and eating the world. Got it.
No wonder Node.js is so popular these days...
With a name like Rod Vagg he should just get into porn and be done with it.
Glad to see that even webshits have had enough SJW BS.
Should be non-reactionary leadership, forking it for social justice is ridiculous.
Back in the day, software projects used to be killed because of technical limitations. Now they are killed because someone objects to what someone else does in their spare time.
According to the github page it has been forked 7,663 times. This seems to be much ado about nothing.
What makes this one special?
A real chance to see whether SJWs can actually code now that they have their own fork.
Posted anonymously to preempt needless forks of my own projects.
Rod Vagg wasn't the one trying to decapitate the program. I'm sure the Ayo devs will be welcomed back after they have had some time to chill out. Can we all just get back to work now?
Buying a political orientation together with your programming language has never been a good idea. If you don't buy into a tax policy when you're buying your breakfast cereals, why would you do that when shopping for your programming tools?
Ezekiel 23:20
Here's the actual code of conduct:
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
I can see some problems with this CoC. For example, "trolling" is in the same league of "unacceptable behavior" as "derogatory attacks". One could also state that someone was "in violation of the CoC" by not "using welcoming and inclusive language"...enough.
Maybe someone with more HR/legal background can pipe up, but perhaps what should be done is to break out the "you're being a jackwagon" behaviors from the "you're gonna get fired" behaviors, and then evaluate potential offenders against that. (Plenty of real world organizations thrive by successfully managing jackwagons, but very few are willing to carry a legal timebomb.)
So they are forking the project because some feminist's feelz were hurt over a tweet? Holy shit...there is never a shortage of retards around.
There's no quicker way to clear the Randi Harpers out of your project than to give them something trivial to get indignant over, and wait for them to fork-off somewhere else.
see title
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
It is gay. As a library, it must be male. Beau wants to mate with Node and spread his seed into cyberspace thru enigmatic cyberterrorism. Cybercrime like this must never allow itself to occur by the cyberpeinciple of cyberreflection.
I thought, according to Javascript is Eating the World:
JavaScript and NodeJS are single handedly eating the world of software.
Looks more like Node.js is being eaten by its own.
[ Also, I would like to point out to the editors that two things cannot "single handedly" do anything. Just sayin'. ]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Well dip me in creeyosote and call me a n199er!
So it's a violation of the code of conduct to suggest a code of conduct may not be necessary? From the article I'm not seeing much about mens rights and more to do with 'neurodiversity' - though I'm aware that the support of "men's rights" is like many things, associated with nazis by the left right now (i.e. anything the populist left does not advocate). But assuming he was linking an article about men's rights, does advocating men's rights violate the Node.JS code of conduct?
I glanced at the code of conduct and saw nothing against criticizing the code of conduct, nor against the supposed support of men's rights. What I did find were guidelines saying members should "Be respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences", and "Gracefully accept constructive criticism". So are the people railing against the TSC instead violating the code of conduct?
The code of conduct can be found here: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
Would some possible contributors be driven away if they saw that Vagg was driven away by over zeaouls SJWs? I know I'd rather not deal with grandstanding jerks that would reject my code submission because they can't deal with my worldview not necessarily agreeing with theirs. I've got better things to do with my free time.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
On August 21, The TSC voted on whether or not to remove Vagg from its ranks. Of the 10 TSC members who voted, 60 percent voted against removing Rod from the TSC and 60 percent voted against asking Rod to voluntarily resign. That the TSC voted to keep Vagg on the committee inflamed others in the project.
I also don't understand why it matters that some member or another of a technical project does in their own time. The project should be about the code, not someone's opinion on men's rights or whatever. It'd be different if the person used the project to forward their personal beliefs ("Node.js supports mens' rights!") but I didn't get from TFA that was the case.
All this forking is really annoying!
I'm half tempted to create a fork for people who want to work on a fork that doesn't fork...
Tired of seeing all the temper tantrums these days
Demanding that every contributor to a project pass the litmus test du jour is childish... eventually, every one of us will fail.
If nothing else, it's a mark of immaturity to be unable to work with somebody who has a viewpoint you disagree with.
You change somebody's opinion by showing them you're a friendly human being, not by being an enemy they dismiss outright.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
As history taught us, even the tiniest difference should immediately provoke divisions; coming up with catchy names for each faction is also quite important (excellent work!). But this situation is harder than usual because, as everyone knows, fully agreeing with the code of conduct is a basic requirement before starting to use any programming language.
In fact and despite not using Node.js at all, I cannot ignore what is likely to become one of the most relevant episodes of our generation. During the next months, I will be living in a cave and hunting my food with my bare hands, just to get closer to mother nature such that I can reach the peace of mind required to even start thinking about what will be my position regarding a so extremely relevant issue.
Just in case: LOL.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Most package managers don't automatically download dependencies for a reason, yet node.js developers ignored that. They got every plugin developer to rely on auto-download. Then they go and break it, causing a buttload of pain for developers. So yeah, lets re-invent a wheel with a triangle and then fuck every developer with it.
The article linked to raises questions about speech codes of conduct, especially at universities, and points out that some people may have neurological diseases like Tourette's Syndrome that don't make them dangerous but may make them unable to comply with such codes. How exactly this is a "Men's Rights Activist" article is beyond me, although I guess men and men in IT may have more tendencies towards these issues. So some SJW got butt hurt because a writer dared to suggest compassion for people with different neurological wiring and this led to the vote and fork. Know what I find most disturbing? That 40% of the people agreed with the SJWs. If this is all it took to make them lose their minds, it's truly a sad day.
Here's what my Code of Conduct would be ...if I had a Code of Conduct:
If you're not here to make meaningful contributions of good code to this project regardless of your, or anyone else's, viewpoints, then Fuck You, Get. Out.
Are they going to reject a bug fix because it came from a bad person?
A quick scan of the (long) article that Vagg commented on reveals why the SJWs are so upset. The article is a direct attack on their worldview. The TL;DR version of the article is that people think differently, and the speech codes that have come into vogue at universities therefore discriminate against specific minorities. WTF is a self-flagellating SJW to do when the fight to uphold the victimization of ever smaller sets of imagined minorities ends up victimizing a minority? The cognitive dissonance must be so debilitating that they can't get away from it even in their safe space echo chambers.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Not really irony but not-so-humorous coincidence that they are behaving in exactly the way the linked article said people would react.
Just prove how immature are Node.js project contributors.
Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
All this commotion because Vagg ignored the CoC.
This is a good example. They fracture communities, exclude everybody whose world-view they do not like, suppress opinions, perform inquisitions into private, non-criminal activities and generally place PC far above performance and technological skill. It is a reasonable assumption that node.js at the very least got much weaker due to a non-technical issue. These are exactly the people that made the dark ages dark. And they seem to want that state back.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Ayo? LMAO!
I know all the good names are taken, but srsly
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Back in the day, software projects used to be killed because of technical limitations. Now they are killed because someone objects to what someone else does in their spare time.
So let me get this straight.
Rod Vagg tweeted using his personal twitter account, on his own time, and referred to an article which appears to be quite worthy of discussion. The title The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech pretty-much describes what one finds in the article. It's about "speech codes", and the effects of limiting what people can say.
The article is completely and totally academic, with a position and supporting argument, written by a psychology professor!
And for tweeting a link to this article, he loses his position as Director of Engineering?
You can get doxxed, threatened, and fired for having a political opinion on your own time if you get caught. Even if you don't publicly voice your opinion on the net, you can get fired for being caught on a security camera at a protest.
This political climate - the one we are living in right now - is insane.
actually when allegations of harassment come up in a traditional project, that person is either fired or sent for some stupid HR training...
Except, as far as I can tell from the article, there weren't any "allegations of harassment": he didn't harass anybody. He tweeted a link to an article-- this article. He did not harass anybody.
The article isn't even one about "Men's rights advocacy" ("MRA")-- what he tweeted was a link to an article presenting the case that codes of conduct which suppress free speech discriminate against people with Asperger's syndrome, because these people have problems understanding what other people might thing would be offensive (the article was about "neurodiverse" people in general, but primarily focussed on Aspergers (which the article calls "Aspies").)
I somewhat wonder about the level of meta here. A person is accused of violating speech guidelines by tweeting a link to an article about speech guidelines?
I'm a huge advocate of Node and JavaScript. I have often thought about contributing to the project but my free-time resources are pretty limited. However the unbelievable hatred and rudeness that Vagg experienced on twitter from what was an otherwise reasonable article closes the door on that choice. While Myles Borins thinks keeping Vagg on board risks alienating potential contributors, he missed the ENTIRE point of the article while directly causing the ramifications outlined in said article. Everything that article pointed out as bad with respect to CoC's was unleashed on Vagg via twitter, and via the organization he is a member of. The hypocrisy and the drama of those on the team who quit because he pointed out that CoC are often subjective, difficult for many to attain, and create an adverse environment for atypical individuals is more than enough to know that is not the right environment for me.
Kudos to Vagg to keeping a level head, and I'm glad to see that he was not further harmed for initiating a discussion. It's also bittersweet to see such irony play out so overtly. This wasn't even remotely close to Damore-level polarization of language, but that seemed to have little effect on the indignation of many.
How is SJLinux doing?
Keep at it, little buckeroo, you'll get there someday!
So it's not that the leadership was unresponsive, but that the leadership responded and when they put it to a vote it was decided not to ostracize Vagg. The people who made the complaints are now taking it to the media to try and shame the board into doing what they want if they won't vote the way they want them to.
Never mind the fact that they violations of the code of conduct they claim can't be found anywhere in said code of conduct (where does it say he can't support men's rights? Where does it say he can't criticize the code of conduct? The Code out right says members must respect differing viewpoints and accept criticism in fact)
There is almost zero capability already to manage deployment and updating of node.js projects, with a pace of development designed to appeal to low attention span developers needing constantly to be challenged with incompatible and indecipherable versioning, migration, support timelines, dependency management, and oh, by the way, this thing is the a language designed to be used by junior developers.
And now just to keep up we have to evaluate the moral background of developers to decide which branch is more "moral".
Increasingly this project looks immature, unfocused, and a poor choice for professionals to use.
I just banned its use here.
I feel better already
Very few people chose their technology based on how nice the developers are to each other, so unless the Ayo devs have some new killer feature up their sleeve, this fork is dead on arrival.
Only use a product if it can survive its most important dev getting hit by a bus...apparently now it's "can this product survive a mob attack by sjws". Dark Times ahead.
Ayo is stillborn.
Auckland Youth Orchestra?
A song by "chris brown" and "tyga"?
A singer-songwriter?
Some wearable app controlled something-a-rather snake oil?
Sorry Ayo, not even PageRank thinks you're relevant
Didn't get any mention of "ayo js" until page 3. Usually I support "Page 3", but not this kind.
Once again lefties believe different opinions are grounds for removal.
Just throw the lefties out, they aren't needed. People who need warm fuzzies to write code probably don't know what they're doing anyway. The best coders have logical, not emotional, minds. They wont be bothered by some guy posting his fucking opinion.
To a guy that's 40, having a code of conduct in a software project seems almost unimaginable. This was adopted willingly by the project? Fucking unbelievable. People are so fucking weak they can't even participate in a hobby software project without being protected in their fucking bubble. I hate these people so much.
Sounds like they need a good SJW purge. Go and start your little fork and let's see who comes up with the better product.
Look at this thread in Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1205323#c8
The usage of the word "guys" can get you banned from Bugzilla, apparently.
Sure a good way of alienating volunteers...
I doubt this will do anything, since it's a fork and the forkers would need to convince everyone to switch. It is an interesting symbolic gesture though.
I know my opinion is very different from most Slashdotters on this subject, but I actually see some of the points these "SJWs" are trying to make. Everyone has the right to free speech, but leading a public open source project means that people will put a little more scrutiny on you than the average person. Publically supporting a position like MRA in a politically charged environment doesn't look good in most people's eyes. The stereotype in the world of development/IT is that we're all a bunch of bro-culture jerks, Asperger's sufferers and socially maladjusted men who don't want women in our little club. Even if that isn't true, why do anything to feed into this perception? Even if you're on your third wife, paying 60% of your income in alimony and child support, or have a female boss you feel is holding you back, why publically endorse a lightning-rod subject like MRA? Rant in private with your other MRA buddies, not out in the open.
Not everyone can pull off being Linus Torvalds, for example. His insult-laden rants are legendary, but usually he's correct even if he can't be nice about it, and people give him a pass because of it. I've worked with a lot of very smart people who, for whatever reason, have had serious personality flaws that were ignored as long as they kept them somewhat under control. The thing that's different now is social media. Even the President tweets whatever comes to his mind at 3 in the morning and has zero filtering capabilities. Ever since LinkedIn changed their interface to clone Facebook, I've seen people get into comment-fights and post very controversial articles/topics...on a site that's basically stapled onto the back of your resume and designed to be your professional "brand." People in positions of leadership need to understand that their words and actions carry a little more weight than the average person.
I'd like to make sure I understand the CoC in the context of the neuro diversity article.
Having two of my 4 on the spectrum, and them being shunned by neuro typicals, but they're unable to fight back, ( call neuro typicals neuro typical nazis maybe?), I'm keen to assess how well they could understand and not violate the CoC.
A group of jagoffs decided to fork NodeJS over bullshit political reasons.
So Vagg tweeted something that not everyone agrees with? Who cares? Apparently enough people bitched so the TSC had a vote whether or not he should stay on the committee. 4 of the 10 people who voted thought that Vagg did a thought crime and should be virtually flogged and removed. Fortunately, the majority disagreed with modern day McCarthyism. As an added bonus, a petulant member by the name of Borins resigned when he didn't get his way.
Except those who fail the political purity test.
When you have two sets of contributors who refuse to work with one another, you cannot keep both sets. You can only choose between them.
Which you have. You don't get to pretend you're welcoming everyone after that.
When the political purity test is more important than the code, the project died a long time ago.
The article they posted is literally the most ironic reason to rage quit and fork. The article talks about how strict codes of conduct hinder creative outlets and can damage a society by firing people like Isaac Newton for who they are.
Just me
Code of conduct.. blah blah.
Someone aims for more than what's coming at them.
Thanks to democracy in this part of the world, people can expres their opinion.
And fork when ever they like.
Lets see how long they last.
The editor should remove the MRA smear.
Wow, Node.js just scored. They got rid of all the whiny SJWs on their project in one fell swoop. Now they can get real work done. Enjoy your fork guys!
Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
I know how make a program using javascript... period. haya!!!!!!!!!! :D
That guy looks so much like a Node.js coder, and we know he's a renegade. Wouldn't be surprised if he gets involved with this fork.
Right... Because you've never argued with some asshole on the Internet.
I guess you could say you weren't arguing with them in an attempt to change their views, but that'd seem a bit sillier than doing so. I'm pretty sure nobody argued without hope of changing views, pretty much never.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
1st rule: You do not talk about Code of Conduct. ...
2nd rule: You DO NOT talk about Code of Conduct!
3rd rule: White CIS males must check their privileges.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
This is straight up BS. The article that Vagg posted on twitter did not "support men's rights". It was scientific in nature and I think well reasoned. This is the Google memo all over again. Someone puts up a good argument that maybe the way we are doing things is BS and here's some real science to prove it, and the SJWs have a collective reeeee loud enough to shake mountains. The SJW argument that everyone is absolutely the same and that is somehow equality is completely wrong. It should go without saying that accusing anyone who disagrees with this SJW falsehood is a Nazi is also BS.
Hopefully one of these days they will reeeeee so hard that it starts the big one in LA and they all fall into the ocean. Nothing of value will be lost and the rest of us can get back to work.
Right... Because you've never argued with some asshole on the Internet.
I think you've misunderstood my posts, and replies. I have certainly argued with people on the internet.
I guess you could say you weren't arguing with them in an attempt to change their views, but that'd seem a bit sillier than doing so. I'm pretty sure nobody argued without hope of changing views, pretty much never.
Experience and science shows that if you present people with facts contradicting their feelings, they usually double down. Once someone's twisted themselves in knots they will never untwist themselves, but it's entertaining to watch them jump through ever more elaborate hoops kind of like a text-mode performing seal.
Plus the rampant misogynists that I argue with I never expect to convert. For the benefit of third party readers, I don't feel that highly modded egregious bullshit should be left unchallenged.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
need to be careful to make all contributors feel welcome.
Except the people that we hate. We can make them resign or destroy their project all we want because they deserve the hate. Which group is the hate group again? I'm getting confused.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
It's ironic that "If you've never considered the potential downsides of codes of conduct, here's a good place to start." brought about the downsides of codes of conduct.
Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
It's your story, you can tell it any way you want to. ;-)
(I fully admit that I've gotten emotional and tried to reason with idiots in an attempt to change their thinking. It's seldom successful.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Ugh.
So a dude dares to have an opinion and people lose their shit over it.
Long story short, it's another io.js and everyone will carry on as per normal. If anything relevant is contributed to the fork, it will eventually be merged. Whatevs.
Experience and science shows that if you present people with facts contradicting their feelings, they usually double down.
Ahh well I see you have gotten to the root of your problem. Next step is to actually look into the facts that were given to you. You stick your fingers in your ears and scream at everyone who doesnt agree with you. Perhaps you should think about things a little bit more indepth slugger.