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."
NO.
This fork is going to signal virtue.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
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
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?