
Rod Vagg's statement on the request to be removed from the Node.js CTC - krlkv
https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues/165#issuecomment-324798494
======
orless
What I'm completely missing in this discussion of Code of Conduct violation is
a specific list of which actions violated which clauses in this Code of
Conduct.

I see a list of complaints, but for an outsider it is really hard to follow
why these actions are considered to be CoC violations.

Take this, for instance:

"In [moderation repository discussion], Rod’s first action was to apologize to
a contributor who had been repeatedly moderated. Rod did not discuss the issue
with other members of the CTC/TSC first. The result undermined the moderation
process as it was occurring. It also undercut the authority as moderators of
other CTC/TSC members."

Do you know how this reads? A case is being made against a "toxic" person who
"repeatedly breaks CoC" and the first complaint against him is that he
_apologized to a contributor_? Really? I just don't get this.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
This was how I viewed it as well. Especially if what Rod said about not being
notified about ANY of these items is true.

This just appears someone compiled a list of things Rod screwed up, most of
which he seemed to own and tried to fix. Maybe my impression is wrong but it
just comes off as awful.

I tried getting the entire story. I tried reading through the complaints,
hunting down tweets and even reading Rod's side. But I eventually had to give
it; it was going to take me hours to gain a small amount of context (some
appears to be private / offline so I don't see a way to gain all of the
necessary context to judge this situation).

I get the feeling people are going to take their biases, one way or another,
and run with what their side is because I don't see a quick way of wading
through all of this.

~~~
mdekkers
_it just comes off as awful_

This is why have stopped contributing to OSS in a public fashion over 20 years
ago. Nasty backstabbing politics (and in my case, there was actually a
business purpose behind it, unlike most of this drama) People online are
_awful_ and the veil of anonymity and distance brings out the worst in people.

Fuck that.

~~~
wmmm
HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN THE ACCUSATIONS? HERE IT IS:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.co...](https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310)

1\. "Rod’s first action was to apologize to a contributor who had been
repeatedly moderated"

2\. "Rod did not moderate himself when asked by another foundation director"

3\. "Rod tweeted in support of an inflammatory anti-Code-of-Conduct article"

NOW ASK YOURSELF: Why was those points removed? Supposedly to save Rod from
harassment. But right now EVERYONE speculates what serious bad behavior it
must have been that leaving it in the public could lead to harassment! NO ONE
would EVER imagine that HE'S #1 BAD BEHAVIOR WAS APOLOGIZING!!!

The second one was not removing his comment THAT DIDN'T INCLUDE ANYTHING RUDE,
OFFENSIVE or in ANY WAY unacceptable, while NO EVIDENCE was ever provided that
would demonstrate that he was even asked to do so!

The third point is DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. In fact Rod tweeted NO MORE NO
LESS: "If you've never considered the potential downsides of codes of conduct,
here's a good place to start" and posted a link to The Neurodiversity Case for
Free Speech ARTICLE by A KNOWN PSYCHOLOGIST Geoffrey Miller - "an American
evolutionary psychologist, serving as an associate professor of psychology at
the University of New Mexico and known for his expertise in sexual selection
in human evolution" (Wikipedia) THAT WAS DESCRIBED AS: "tweeted in support of
an inflammatory anti-Code-of-Conduct article"

NOW ASK YOURSELF: was the actual accusations, the 3 worst things that Rod ever
did, removed to save Rod from harassment? Or to make us all speculate of what
crimes it must have been that he could be harassed if anyone knew what he did?
FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

.

REFERENCES:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15176562](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15176562)

[https://medium.com/@rvagg/the-truth-about-rod-
vagg-f063f6a53...](https://medium.com/@rvagg/the-truth-about-rod-
vagg-f063f6a53557)

[https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841](https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841)

[http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-
spe...](http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-speech/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Miller_(psychologist)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Miller_\(psychologist\))

.

SEE ALSO:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15176562](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15176562)

~~~
wmmm
!!! UPDATE !!!

The Node's Code of Conduct was originally copied from:

[https://www.contributor-covenant.org/](https://www.contributor-covenant.org/)

which has FEMINIST colors and explicitly link to extreme FEMINIST website: the
so called Geek Feminism wiki, that fights to introduce 50% women (of course
feminists) to every software project, NOT BASED ON SKILLS which is explicitly
stated on the website.

If you read more closely you will not only see obvious links to FEMINISM but
also to MARXISM. At this point it should be no surprise that they are fighting
with "white men" that they hate using their own made-up language like
cisheteronormative bias etc.

ONE OF THE FEMINISTS FROM NODE WERE ACCUSED OF MUCH WORST VIOLATIONS THAN ROD
VAGG AND THEY ARE ALREADY MAKING EXCUSES:

>>> Multiple CoC violations by Node.js board member Ashley Williams
[https://www.reddit.com/r/node/comments/6whs2e/multiple_coc_v...](https://www.reddit.com/r/node/comments/6whs2e/multiple_coc_violations_by_nodejs_board_member/)

WARNING: there is RASIST and SEXIST language quoted in the tweets written by
Ashley Williams, promoting GENOCIDE and forced CASTRATION but apparently that
is nothing compared to an innocent tweet by Rod Vagg.

Now DON'T BE SURPRISED!

FEMINISM is like MARXISM (and in fact there are very strong links between the
two).

This is CLASS CONFLICT. Like MARXISTS don't want EQUAL RIGHTS for the
CAPITALIST - they just want to TAKE OVER what they achieved. THE SAME IS HERE.

So PEOPLE!!! Don't be surprised if you let those FEMINIST "CODE OF CONDUCTS"
into your projects!!!

------
wakeywakeywakey
Having reviewed the relevant tweets/GitHub issues/blog posts, I feel most of
the noise is generated by people who make it their mission to find things
about which to be outraged.

The NodeJS brand has the momentum necessary to build great things. If they
squander it by cry-wolf-forking every time there is an internal disagreement,
another JS engine (e.g. Chakra) will take the helm.

~~~
AlexeyBrin
> The NodeJS brand has the momentum necessary to build great things. If they
> squander it by cry-wolf-forking every time there is an internal
> disagreement, another JS engine (e.g. Chakra) will take the helm.

Node.js _is not_ an engine, Node.js uses the V8 engine (same engine that
powers the Chrome browser). Technically you could use Node.js with the Chakra
engine or other JavaScript engines.

~~~
flanbiscuit
Didn't Microsoft do that? Created a version of Node using Chakra as proof of
concept

~~~
BinaryIdiot
No, Microsoft modified node to allow drop in replacement of the JavaScript
engine and then provided a Chakra backed version of node. It actually seemed
to work pretty well and was pretty well received by the community. I believe
others were attempting to do the same with the Firefox JS engine
(SpiderMonkey? I can't remember what it's called) using the same base of work
Microsoft created.

~~~
askmike
> I believe others were attempting to do the same with the Firefox JS engine
> (SpiderMonkey? I can't remember what it's called)

You don't mean Rhino? That was years ago when node was just gaining traction.

~~~
yellowapple
My impression is that Rhino was a separate project entirely.

------
andrewguenther
> I have submitted myself to our Code of Conduct as a participant in this
> project. I have been involved in the application of our Code of Conduct. But
> I do not accept it as a sacred text that is above critique or even
> discussion.

This, to me, is one of the most important lines of his response. I feel like
critiques of CoCs and other related documents and processes coming from a
white male are often interpreted as hostile. I would consider myself an ally,
but I am afraid to weigh in on these kinds of discussions because differing
opinions are so often manipulated into "hate" and "toxicity."

~~~
adamrezich
> I feel like critiques of CoCs and other related documents and processes
> coming from a white male are often interpreted as hostile.

At what point do we stop ignoring this inconvenient truth?

~~~
retox
If you want to be taken seriously by these troublemaking outrage addicts as a
while male, you need to get a weird haircut and to dye your hair a few
different colors. Chunky glasses are a plus.

~~~
s73ver_
Statements like yours do nothing to help matters.

------
bjt2n3904
This has echoes of Title IX proceedings. From the account above.

> Some time ago I received notification via email that there are complaints
> against me. No details were provided and I was informed that I would neither
> receive those details or be involved in the whatever process was to take
> place. Further, TSC members were not allowed to speak to me directly about
> these matters, including my work colleagues also on the TSC. I was never
> provided with an opportunity to understand the specific charges against me
> or be involved in any discussions on this topic from that point onward.

From the article below, [1]

> Right away, the accused is cautioned about confidentiality: s/he is warned
> not to discuss the pending complaint with colleagues or students. The
> accused will only learn of the accusations against them when s/he meets
> face-to-face with the local Title IX enforcement squad.

Kangaroo court.

[1] [http://quillette.com/2017/08/24/survived-title-ix-star-
chamb...](http://quillette.com/2017/08/24/survived-title-ix-star-chamber/)

------
ChuckMcM
One of the things that is useful about due process is the right to confront
your accusers and cross examine them under oath. Without those rights, it is
difficult, if not impossible, to see justice done.

Too often these important elements are missing, and Rod's statement "At no
point have I been provided with an opportunity to answer to these complaints,
correct the factual errors contained in them (see below), apologize and make
amends where possible, or provide additional context that may further explain
accusations against me." suggests that this lack of due process is present in
this case as well.

When "Somebody complained about you in a serious way, but we can't say who, or
the substance of the complaint." is the standard against which the process is
measured, then it leaves itself open for abuse.

~~~
kbenson
This is, as I see it, an unfortunate side effect of vastly under valuing
intent and over valuing individual interpretations and how they make people
feel. There needs to be a balance, and when there's not you end up with
problems. If that's what happened in this case, it might have resulted in
_fault_ being a much more nebulous concept to those people.

It's possible he said some things which ended up hurting people's feelings.
It's entirely possibly he had no intention his actions be interpreted as they
were. In that case, if you over value intent, he did nothing wrong, and some
people were being too sensitive. If you over value interpretation, he should
have known better, and it's his responsibility to be on top of how his actions
would be interpreted.

Neither extreme is even remotely workable for all situations. The only thing
that works in practice is that people accept that their wording sometimes
needs changing based on common perceptions of it, and also that people may not
have interpreted something as intended and intention matters as well. The only
way to do this in practice is to actually communicate intent and
interpretation when there's a problem so corrections can be made if they
apply, and to both parties being open to accepting those corrections. This is
obviously impossible if there is no communication.

~~~
x0x0
Four people resigned from the whatever-board when Rob was not asked to leave,
and have written elsewhere about their repeated interactions with him. The
fact that the four of them basically decided they don't wish to work in an org
that Rob works in speaks (imo obviously) to him being a relatively unpleasant
person to be around. Also, I'm skeptical that four people all are blowing
things out of proportion, but who knows.

~~~
kbenson
There are _plenty_ of times I've seen a small group misinterpret something,
and then feed off each other, and then reinterpret future events with that
new, sometimes incorrect, context. On one side we have people that were
apparently so upset they decided to leave. On the other we have someone that
professes to not being notified when he made people uncomfortable, and more
so, actively kept in the dark to the point that he had to drag minute details
out of third parties that weren't supposed to talk about it.

What I'm saying is that it's entirely possible that they are both telling the
absolute truth. Even if that's the case, one side _appears_ to be trying to
communicate and come to an amicable solution. The other side doesn't appear to
be willing to consider that (or have ever really considered it an avenue of
addressing the problem), at least from the information presented so far, but
that's not necessarily the whole story either.

------
chis
It's insane that we might reach a point where people install different
branches of a project based on their political leanings...

I think the main takeaway here is that a Code of Conduct, while valuable, has
to be treated carefully. A lot of these projects agreed to a Code of Conduct
just to appease a certain faction of their devs, and are now seeing that it
can be used against them.

~~~
mayank
There is absolutely no evidence that this fork will gain traction, because it
contributes nothing new technically, so it's unlikely we'll reach the point
you mention.

~~~
chis
I'm not an expert, but it seems within the realm of possibility. Despite what
hackernews thinks, the forkers have a somewhat reasonable argument, in that
Vagg did violate the Code of Conduct (because it is extreme), and the
committee voted to ignore it (because he's a valuable contributor). Morality
aside, it calls the system into question if someone can violate established
rules and get away with it because the judges disagree with the rules.

Also, several members of their ruling committee left to make the fork. So it's
not just a bunch of randoms, and they might be able to make some meaningful
progress on their own.

~~~
GenericsMotors
This is definitely a good experiment to see if a project that is so centered
around its CoC will prosper or wither on the vine.

My bet is on cold hard code, but who knows? Time will tell.

~~~
fleitz
The political question is whether they can attract via their politics the
people who make the cold hard code.

Code hard code matters far more than politics to nodeJS consumers, but nodeJS
producers may be influenced by politics.

You want to be the side that attracts the cold hard coders similarly to the
way communists defected to the west during the cold war.

~~~
thehardsphere
An important thing to note about that analogy is that defections to the West
happened because the West was actually better, not merely more attractive on
the surface.

~~~
fleitz
Exactly, capitalists pay in cold hard cash. You can't buy a sports car if the
state doesn't even allow them to be made.

------
rdtsc
It was pretty hard to discern what happened. A lot of text and veiled
insinuations. He is how far I got:

It was this article tweeted by Rod:

[http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-
spe...](http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-speech/)

Which was noticed by a member of the community:

[https://twitter.com/captainsafia/status/887782785221615618](https://twitter.com/captainsafia/status/887782785221615618)

Does that describe it? Maybe someone has a more clear summary

One thing I noticed is that Node.js community seems to be followed by drama.
Maybe it's just something I misunderstood, but I have observed Python, Erlang,
Elixir, other communities around specific projects and libraries and I just
don't see these many scandals there. In fact at one point when I reject
Node.js as viable platform, the community scandals and seeming immaturity was
one of top factors. What is it about this community that seems to attract this
kind of behavior? And note I am not taking any sides in this case, as it is
not clear what happened, it is just it looks messy to an outside developer
looking in.

~~~
b34r
Disclaimer: I'm a gay male that has been involved with groups run/moderated by
the people I mention below.

Several high ranking members of Node / NPM are militant queer feminists. If
they smell blood in the water, they tend to pounce hard without much regard
for due process. Others glom on either in agreement or to make themselves seem
progressive.

~~~
b34r
To give a specific example, I was part of an LGBTQ in Tech Slack group that
was admined by several members of the community mentioned above.

Their CoC indicated that anyone considered a majority group (white and male
being the worst) would automatically be considered at fault in any/all
arguments and they would be resolved in favor of the minority.

That's the mentality at play here that does not give a space for people to
defend themselves and resolve conflict. Sweep it under the rug so as to not
disturb the more sensitive fringe elements, and condemn those who have not had
a chance to even consider repenting.

------
_Marak_
It really makes me sad to think of the amount of hours Rod has spent on this
instead of writing free software for all of us to use.

Node got really popular, and with that came a whole group of people who are
more interested in social justice instead of actual technical work.

NPM is partially to blame for employing most of the people who are pushing to
remove Rod.

~~~
joe-mccann
I agree, Marak. To ALL of what you said.

------
bhouston
Too much drama and polemics. My god he spent a lot of time on that response --
like hours.

If you are writing long emails dealing with responses to drama, you need to
move on. Not because you are at fault but the whole situation is screwed up
and not worth your time. This is not a win-win situation, but an everyone lose
situation.

It means you and others are in the muck. Once you get a bunch of these
accusations and long polemical post flying around it is nearly impossible to
figure out who is right and who is wrong. The way people try to win here is
ultra long polemical posts, secret discussions, accusations, character
assassinations, etc. Non of which is at all productive.

Being in the muck is a huge waste of time and energy for everyone. Find
something that doesn't involve so much drama, life is short.

I think one rule in software development is that once you are engaging in
polemics, especially many hours of it per day, and not technical matters,
something is sick about the situation -- get out of it.

~~~
eric_b
Was "Polemic" in your word of the day email or something?

Anyways, Rod's character is being assassinated on the internet. Prospective
employers could Google his name and all they'll see is one side of things,
unless he attempts to defend himself.

Additionally - the people wielding the pitchforks _want_ him to just give up.
At some point it's important for people to take a stand if they believe in
their principles - or maybe I'm just old fashioned.

~~~
bhouston
This is a polemic:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic)

It is not a means of trying to fix the issue, but rather a strong worded,
accusatory, defensive blast at his critics by someone who believes they were
wronged and others are at fault.

This is not a "how to get to yes" type response, but rather a response that
just inflames a situation, and causes everyone to dig in.

There is going to be no winner going down this path, just losers all around
and a lot of wasted energy and time.

Yuk.

~~~
eric_b
Sounds like you'd already made up your mind about Rod, and weren't keen to
hear the other side.

I, on the other hand, was curious to read his version of things so I'm glad he
took the time to offer a detailed reply. After reading his "polemic" I felt he
was rational, composed, and defended his actions and character rather well. I
came to the conclusion that the pitchfork wielding folks were slinging a lot
of unsubstantiated accusations that look a lot like moral authoritarianism.

My read was that he diffused a lot of possible indignation and inflammation
with his word choice and tone. He was more conciliatory than I would have been
in his position.

~~~
bhouston
> Sounds like you'd already made up your mind about Rod, and weren't keen to
> hear the other side.

I actually only read his side, although I stopped after a couple screen fulls
as I recognized from experience that what I was reading was not a productive
response to the situation at hand, but a defensive one.

~~~
kuyan
> I recognized from experience that what I was reading was not a productive
> response to the situation at hand, but a defensive one.

What would a productive response be? I agree that getting unnecessarily mired
in drama is counterproductive, but I don't think that these accusations could
have been reasonably ignored, nor do I know what Rod could (or should) have
done differently.

~~~
bhouston
In real-life, outside of 10,000 word github issues, one should call those you
are having problems with and talk about it. That is how you resolve these
issues. You show empathy, you show understanding, you take more responsibility
that you deserve because you have a strong ego, you focus on the future and
how best to achieve joint success, you show some flexibility, you get a
mutually beneficial resolution or an agreed plan of action that should lead to
a better outcome. This is best done on a one-by-one basis. And people come to
your side or at least understand you.

You need to not be accusatory, nor defensive.

This is the age old way of dealing with issues in a productive fashion. Read
getting to "Getting to yes" or try getting married.

What I read in this github issue is just immature, very ineffective problem
solving from I guess someone who doesn't know better.

~~~
echaozh
When people defame you in the public, to talk to people in the private don't
solve all the problems. The public need to hear from both sides.

You don't like to hear the defense, all right. Just don't try to stop other
people from hearing it.

~~~
bhouston
> When people defame you in the public, to talk to people in the private don't
> solve all the problems. The public need to hear from both sides.

Only if you want to run a negative sum game for all involved. This is a
horrible strategy to engage in. You only end up also wrecking your own
reputation and others and wasting a ton of time.

The socially mature thing to do is resolve this behind closed doors and be
flexible as I suggested.

He may get some success by playing the martyr, but it will be success that
occurs by his aggression, stubbornness and by expending more efforts in
polemics than others. In the end he might still be standing but everyone
around him will be wounded metaphorically because of this (mostly via huge
wastes of time because of difficult conversations and departures of people
from the project.)

Anyone who wants to run a company focused on results and to avoid unnecessary
drama should avoid this type of character like the plague.

This behavior he is currently engaging in is a huge red flag if you recognize
it for what it is.

Again, he is engaging in a strategy that forces everyone into a negative sum
game, which is itself a form of aggression -- and it is easy to recognize from
this github issue as I've seen this before close up. It is not a smart thing
to do and should have been avoided by doing things differently long ago.

He can still pull up by basically retracting all of this and re-engaging in a
mature and flexible manner that shows some contrition/empathy -- but that
requires a strong ego, social maturity, and flexibility which may not be
something that is possible on his part at this time. Everyone he is dealing
with would love that I am sure, even at this stage, because it will stop the
negative sum game.

~~~
CrystalLangUser
Once someone drags your name through the mud _in public_ , it's well past the
point of having a private chat. His behavior isn't a huge red flag in the
slightest; he's responding to what's essentially a public attack of his
character. Responding to something like that publicly _when it 's already a
public situation_ isn't a form of aggression.

You are projecting WAY too much of your own bias and opinion into what was
simply a response. It's telling that you're suggesting he needs to have social
maturity when the allegations levied against him are pretty unsubstantiated-
see the "evidence" of him retweeting an article discussing free speech
concerns on college campuses.

Are you genuinely so obtuse as to scorn a man who's attempting to merely
_respond_ to being accused of something?

~~~
bhouston
If the allegations were unsubstantiated it would not have gotten this far,
especially if he dealt with this in a mature fashion by engaging and showing
he is just a reasonable person. If they were totally unsubstantiated the only
way it would get to this point is because he dealt with it in the worst ways
possiblle.

People wouldn't have quit to make what is essentially a useless fork if it
were truly unsubstantiated. Those people are truly angry about what happened.
This means there was something to resolve but it wasn't resolved, we just get
grandstanding and massive effort into polemical defenses.

He tactically argues like a really smart guy, but his overall strategy is the
wrong one.

~~~
freeone3000
This reads akin to the logic behind a witch hunt - a bunch of people are very
upset at a person, therefore the person must be a witch. I disagree with the
premise.

The people are indisputibly angry. They may have reason to be angry. I don't
see it, but they may have it. But the entire line that "he's accused,
therefore he must be guilty" is flawed.

------
bsder
This story actually helped crystallize why I have been quite so knee jerk
against things like Codes of Conduct.

The whole point of a Code of Conduct, Homeowner's Association, or anything
else which attempts to codify politeness, common sense, respect, etc. is to be
used as a bureaucratic bludgeon against _someone_. And, while those may get
put in place to get used _against_ a single egregiously bad person, they then
stick around to get used _by_ the far more numerous petty political jerks.

~~~
glasz
this. where can i vote a million times?

------
gred
We need an updated Waldorf Statement [1].

 _" Members of the Node.js community deplore the action of the CTC men who
have been cited for contempt by the Foundation board. We do not desire to
prejudge their legal rights, but their actions have been a disservice to this
project and have impaired their usefulness to the industry."_

 _" We will forthwith discharge or suspend without compensation those in our
employ, and will not re-employ any of these men until such a time as he is
acquitted on Twitter or has purged himself of contempt and declares under oath
that he is not a Meritocracist."_

 _" On the broader issue of alleged sexist and non-inclusive elements in
Silicon Valley, our members are likewise prepared to take positive action."_

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_Statement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_Statement)

------
nawgszy
I don't particularly understand the claims against this man, but as this
organization and its discussions happen (almost) entirely online [is this
correct?], surely it must be incredibly obvious whether or not allegations
brought against him are true or not?

~~~
jamescostian
It seems it's not that simple. At least according to him, this wasn't all
online, e.g. consider this quote:

> I do not recall being asked to remove the names of the companies involved, I
> have only now seen that they have been edited out of my post. I cannot find
> any evidence that such a request was even made. This would have been a
> trivial matter on my part and I would have done it without argument if I had
> have seen such a request.

------
zbentley
Possibly off-topic: this is why GitHub, and GitLab, are both problematic
platforms for online collaboration and community-building.

There was once a list of grievances against this person here
[https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310).
That list is no longer present; it has been redacted, and a reason for that
redaction has been posted.

As someone who has zero context for this issue, this makes it very hard for me
to understand.

This redaction is not something that can happen easily with source code.
Comments and other "metadata" can be edited, permanently and without a view
into history. That makes it very hard to trace the genealogy of discussions.

Sure, you can rewrite git history and push, but that's a) less durable,
because someone might have a fork/copy of the repo, and b) much less common by
convention.

I really don't like the tendency of GitHub/GitLab as platforms to encourage
the "facebook style" of content authorship (what you posted is what you posted
. . . until someone edits, it, then it _never was_ that in the eyes of recent
arrivals).

Edit: I will probably accidentally type markdown into HN comments until the
day I die.

~~~
pvorb
Fortunately, somebody already took a snapshot and there's a _way back_ :
[https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.co...](https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310)

~~~
mdip
That was my first thought. A lot of people in the last several years have
learned the hard way that for all practical purposes, the Internet tends to be
forever.

Sure, you may not be able to find that really useful utility you once used to
parse regular expressions because the author stopped maintaining it, took the
web site down and never released the source code[0], but that _one_ time
you[1] drank too much and tweeted something embarrassing will be discoverable
on Google next to your name for decades after you die.

[0] That's been a bugger of mine for a while -- if anyone knows where Rad
Regular Expression Designer went, I'll e-mail you a soda.

[1] Or when someone who shares your name and got arrested for theft (thank God
he lives in a part of the country I have never visited).

------
thwd
Shame how such a cool project as node.js can drown in political
fingerpointing. The only measurement that counts (in my opinion) is cold hard
code contributions.

~~~
Stratoscope
It's a little extreme to say that cold hard code is the _only_ thing that
counts. Years ago I worked with someone who contributed more cold hard code
than anyone else I've known. A brilliant developer, probably one of those
"10X" people they talk about: that rare combination of outstanding technical
chops and "get the job done" productivity.

But more than once, he jumped into projects and features that he knew other
people on the team were already working on, implemented them himself in a rush
without coordinating with the other developers, and pushed his code instead.

Sometimes he would take shortcuts to get it done faster while his teammates
were working on a more fully developed version of the feature. And since he
was first, that was the code that would be used. The other developers were
left with nothing to show for their efforts, less of a feeling that they were
valued members of the team, and a significant loss of reputation in the eyes
of management.

Cold hard code is important, of course. But it's not the only thing.

~~~
nogbit
Who was running that team? Blame should be on leadership for running an
inefficient team where team members don't share and coordinate so that common
projects, code, libs etc can be flushed out.

------
avaer
Are long-winded quarrels and dysfunctions unique to node core, or is node core
just transparent in documenting the making of the sausage?

~~~
Finnucane
See also: all of human history.

------
par
Node community is going to argue its way into obscurity.

~~~
jamescostian
While the snark of this comment may push it into obscurity by those who hate
snarky comments, I totally agree. I was surprised we could even still have
Node.js after the huge Node.js vs io.js debacle. I think all of these
arguments are about important issues, but they also can give a very negative
impression to outsiders (not to mention how insiders aware of all the facts
may feel).

That said, I am at least happy to see a he's going for a middle ground - he
seems to be saying he won't step down, but he also looks like he's apologizing
for anything he did wrong. Perhaps that's the best way to end the argument
despite it not 100% pleasing either side

~~~
wolco
The Node.js vs io.js fork changed the way many looked at node and probably
changed its growth axis.

This is not the same and highlights why a code of conduct focusing on moral
issues is not always the best path for a project/language.

~~~
jamescostian
Perhaps this is because my coffee rush ended and I'm currently in the post-
coffee slump, but I don't follow what you're saying. Are you saying this event
will/has not change(d) the way many looked at node as well as perhaps its
growth axis? Also, when you mention these changes, I'm honestly not familiar
with the stats - did they improve or decline? I also don't follow your second
paragraph, but that could be simply because I missed what you were saying in
your first

~~~
wolco
The first fork drove some away because some felt the ecosystem was fragmenting
but many came back after they merged back or understood io.js advantages. Some
new developers who might have choosen the language never came back. The growth
curve was altered because of those events.

This new split will not drive people away or stop the adoption in the same
way. It's may cause some to put there changes in this new fork but this new
fork will push changes to the node.js repo and this new fork will keep pulling
changes from node.js.

------
dmitrij
It's been quite a journey from a "great babbling bazaar of differing agendas
and approaches"[1] to this mess. Bureaucracy always wins in the end.

[1] <[http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-
bazaar/cathedral-...](http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-
bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/index.html#catbmain>)

------
tomcam
A code of conduct without transparency or due process seems more than
dangerous to me. It is the stuff of kangaroo courts and star chambers.

~~~
Analemma_
James Snell's reasoning behind hiding the accusations inside the committee
deliberations is theoretically sound: to keep Rod from getting harassed. I
mean, under the current circumstances, a public, enumerated list of all your
supposed crimes is pretty much guaranteed to bring a mob down on your head,
and it would probably rocket to the top of Google searches for your name --
regardless of how the process turned out.

But transparency in the process is also important. I don't have a good answer
for this. It seems to be damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't.

~~~
flippinburgers
He makes it sound as if he was unable to even know what he was being accused
of in order to defend himself. He should be apart of that process even if it
is in private.

Not being allowed to criticize something is the first red flag, for me
personally, that the idea is likely to be worthless. There shouldn't be any
debate about whether or not an idea can be criticized and the people in this
thread who seem to be ok with firing/excluding a person because of their
opinion... man that is just bizarro-land to me.

------
gcoda
It is weird. But a lot of times "toxic" people need real protection. It is
easy to get accused but not every one can argue or explain their personal
views like Rod. Or even have strength to deal with it and not over react or
get panic attack

I am wondering about introvert geeks accused of "toxic behavior" silently
sitting in the corner.

------
mikerathbun
The Node community seems to have more issues like this than others. This feels
similar to the Nodevember drama where Douglas Crockford was uninvited to speak
because a small group of people felt uncomfortable. What that community needs
to understand is that speaking takes a lot of work and guts to do.
Professionals are busy people and it’s a privilege to hear experts present.
Same goes for contributing time and expertise to open source projects. If it
becomes common to force people out for perceived wrong think than all that
will be left are codes of conducts instead of codes of systems.

------
geofft
A bit of a thought experiment for myself: suppose that Rod were as terrible as
the worst possible claims made against him. (I am confident he's not.) Suppose
he were actively, consciously hoping to deceive and harm the Node community.
(I am also confident he's not.) What sort of statement would he write? How
much would it look like this one?

~~~
adamrezich
Once somebody has decided someone else's guilt, all following stimuli is
interpreted through the lens of confirmation bias by default—and it takes an
uncommonly truth-seeking mind to see past it. No matter how "heartfelt" or
"thoughtful" a written or verbal apology is, it won't change any minds that've
already been made up.

This has been happening more and more recently, both online and in
geopolitics.

~~~
geofft
Eh, my personal reaction was that I was significantly _more_ sympathetic to
him after reading his writeup, so I was wondering if that's actually evidence-
based or just emotion-based.

~~~
GenericsMotors
Please follow up on what was the supposed evidence against him and you will
see his response was reasonable.

~~~
geofft
Oh yeah - his response was definitely reasonable if the facts are that the
supposed evidence against him was trumped up and he's in the right.

I'm just trying to figure out if his response is _also_ what I'd expect to see
if the facts are that the supposed evidence against him is completely accurate
and that he's a toxic contributor who's trying to hurt the project.

~~~
GenericsMotors
So he is condemned in your eyes, not matter what evidence is presented?

~~~
geofft
Huh? That's rather the opposite of what I'm saying.

------
DannyBee
I have never understood why open source projects have taken to trying to cargo
cult dispute resolution and due process.

They don't have the training, resources, or infrastructure to make it work.

Really, they should just be realistic, and say "we're gonna look at what
people say, make a completely arbitrary decision, and stick with it".

Because that's what is really happening.

------
Rjevski
Does anyone have a TLDR about this story? I haven't had the time to follow all
the drama.

~~~
gaius
Honestly, GitHub gets more like Tumblr every day.

~~~
PrimHelios
It's been that way for a while. One of the big reasons I up and moved away
from it. I only use it to send PRs for Github hosted repos now.

It's amazing how quickly an organization or platform can just die like this.
Sure, it isn't _dead_ dead, but it's descended into a pit of political BS and
petty drama.

------
mattkrea
Not surprised to see James Snell prominently involved in this. I've had bad
feelings about this since the io.js group joined the foundation. This is
upsetting having followed (and used) the project for so long.

------
PrimHelios
I've tried keeping up with what's been happening with Node, but I'm completely
lost here. Could anyone summarize what's been happening or point me to a
summarization?

------
orless
As a thought experiment imagine your manager asks you about the new node.js
fork and whether you should switch to it. What would you say?

~~~
thehardsphere
If your manager is aware enough of the situation to know there is a fork, but
is not aware enough to know that the fork is pure politics, it might be time
to change managers. That is such an odd superposition of being simultaneously
informed and not that one couldn't help but wonder what other strategic
mistakes would happen.

~~~
gaius
News of this has made mainstream tech news sites like El Reg. That's how I
originally heard about it, I don't do much Github these days.

~~~
thehardsphere
If your manager is relying on mainstream news to inform decisions regarding
_their product 's primary software dependency_, it might be time to change
managers.

~~~
orless
Since it is so serious, I promise I will change the imaginary managery from
the thought experiment.

------
danso
I didn't know who Mr. Vagg was or his role in Node before reading his post,
and without looking at posts/tweets from the people who opposed him, or having
a clear grasp of the controversy, I still appreciated that he put the time
toward a lengthy rebuttal. Writing a lot of words, for any reason, is a decent
time investment. And it takes significantly more time to make it reasonably
accommodating and (at least from my non-informed viewpoint) not obviously
antagonistic. Whatever the merit of the arguments/complaints, I can at least
appreciate that this is something important to him.

Since the primary complaints against him involve details that he does not
specify (and may not be easily findable after a lot of digging), I was
interested in the 3rd listed complaint, which was about how he allegedly
conducted himself on Twitter:

> _Most recently Rod tweeted in support of an inflammatory anti-Code-of-
> Conduct article. As a perceived leader in the project, it can be difficult
> for outsiders to separate Rod’s opinions from that of the project. Knowing
> the space he is participating in and the values of our community, Rod should
> have predicted the kind of response this tweet
> received.[https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841*](https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841*)

Point 1 of his rebuttal:

> _The post I linked to was absolutely not an anti-Code-of-Conduct article. It
> was an article written by an Associate Professor of Evolutionary Psychology
> at the University of New Mexico, discussing free speech in general and
> suggesting a case against speech codes in American university campuses. In
> sharing this, I hoped to encourage meaningful discussion regarding the
> possible shortcomings of some standard Code of Conduct language. My intent
> was not to suggest that the Node.js project should not have a Code of
> Conduct in place.*

Point 4:

> _To re-state for further clarity, I have not made a case against Codes of
> Conduct in general, but rather, would like to see ongoing discussion about
> how such social guidelines could be improved upon, as they clearly have
> impact on open source project health._

Here's his Tweet and its reply chain:
[https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841](https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841)

I don't think the tweet rises to the level of demanding his removal. I don't
know Vagg or his Twitter account so I don't know what his rhetorical style is
(and I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt that Twitter is part-
performance). But I didn't find his rebuttal to be convincing. It's not just
that he tweeted out an article that may have annoyed/offended people. It's the
way his tweet replies are what you'd expect from someone who just doesn't like
CoC's, but is too politically savvy to say it, e.g.

" _And folks who think there 's a possibility that CoCs may not be achieving
their stated aims? No room for discussion on that?_"

" _I accept that, but there are surely valid concerns about their current
implementation that could lead to improved solutions_ "

" _If we 're talking evidence, I'd love to see some solid data on the use of
CoCs, it doesn't exist, we just have to have faith._"

" _But I have witnessed the negatives, again and again, the most tragic are
against those who don 't naturally fit in_"

Even accepting that Twitter is just not ideal for substantive debate, it's
hard to not feel he's being less than upfront. He wants an open discussion
about CoC's. But every tweet has the tone of _" But maybe CoCs can be bad? Why
isn't there data? etc etc"_. For the sake of argument, I'll happily assume his
premise -- that CoCs may be inherently flawed and lead to the injustice they
purport to fight -- but _why doesn 't he describe an actual example_? Calling
for "open discussion" and then just retorting with points so vague that no one
can honestly discuss them is one of the most annoying things to see. e.g. _"
But there are surely valid concerns about their current implementation that
could lead to improved solutions"_ If you think this surely must be the case,
_why don 't you kick off the discussion with just one of those things you've
considered_?

Back to his posted rebuttal on Github. I'm glad that he pointed out his record
for supporting Node.js's CoC and using CoC in his own projects. But when he
says:

\- _" I have never made a case against the Node.js Code of Conduct."_

\- But on Twitter, he implies that people aren't skeptical enough of CoC's and
that he has "witnessed the negatives, again and again".

Is his lack of criticism of Node.js CoC ("I have never made a case") because
Node does _it right_? Or is it because he doesn't think it's worth it for him
(in his position) to critique Node.js CoC (which is an understandable
position). His rebuttal, when looking at the source material, doesn't feel
direct enough to me. How can he claim that "the post I linked to was
absolutely not an anti-Code-of-Conduct article" when the article starts off
with:

 _" In this article, I’ll explore the science of neurodiversity, and how
campus speech codes and restrictive speech norms impose impossible
expectations on the social sensitivity, cultural awareness, verbal precision,
and self-control of many neurodivergent people."_

Concludes with:

 _" Campus speech codes discriminate against neurominorities."

Followed by:

_"In a future article, I’ll outline a legal strategy to use the ADA to
eliminate campus speech codes that discriminate against neurominorities."*

Reading the entire post a couple times over, if the professor believes that
there are code of conducts that are not inherently discriminatory, he doesn't
cite any evidence of their existence, or make an attempt to outline what an
acceptable CoC looks like.

\----

Putting aside all the other complaints leveled at Vagg -- not because I think
they're unimportant, but because there's not enough info for outsiders to have
an informed opinion -- I sincerely hope that Vagg and Node.js's governance can
come to an amicable and transparent resolution at least on whether Node.js CoC
is as good as it can be -- which seems reasonable if Vagg's public record of
supporting it comes from his personal principles.

I do believe that CoC's are both well-intentioned and worth fighting for. And
I also agree that they are and will always be a hard problem, because they
attempt to address and mitigate hard problems. I don't know what the
resolution to Node.js's conflict is, but the last thing we need is yet another
fucking blowup in which the entire debate gets reduced to the lazy polemic of
"Objective programmers yelled at by SJW soft scientists"

~~~
mcphage
> But when he says:

>> "I have never made a case against the Node.js Code of Conduct."

> But on Twitter, he implies that people aren't skeptical enough of CoC's and
> that he has "witnessed the negatives, again and again".

If you use anything enough times, you'll witness the negatives again and
again, even if you feel the positives outweigh the negatives and overall
recommend it. Viewing something as a net positive, let alone not making a case
against it, does not require you to be blind to it's negatives.

------
feduzi
What is wrong with Node.js governance (except Rod's case)? Is there any list
of such problems?

------
dmitrygr
He is clear, logical, and reasonable.

Poor guy, they will eat him alive.

~~~
whipoodle
Oh stop. "They" who? There was already a vote to remove him and the motion was
rejected. He has clearly declined to back down in the matter (I don't mean
this negatively, I just mean he's not folding). Somehow I suspect he will be
just fine.

------
danjoc
My momma had a way of dealing with these sorts of arguments. Everyone was
punished. Look at these petty people. They all seem to have missed out on that
sort of parenting.

"Rod has his opinion on CoC and you have yours. Now play nice or you both go
to bed early with no TV."

I believe Rod and his detractors are all earning a different sort of
punishment though. Who wants to hire a bunch of drama queens like this? It's
too bad salary data isn't public like tweets. It would be interesting to see
exactly how much internet drama negatively impacts a person's lifetime earning
potential.

------
GenericsMotors
TLDR: core contributor displeases blue-haired SF nobodies, who fail to evict
him from the project.

They proceed to throw a temper-tantrum and create a useless fork which so far
has done nothing but bike-shedding.

~~~
parzivalm
While you most likely made that comment in jest. Stereotyping everyone into a
category like "blue-haired SF nobodies" is rather offensive.

Not saying I disagree about the temper-tantrum, but there was no reason to
state it in the way you did.

~~~
GenericsMotors
Yes, you are right, it was an unnecessary jab...and I apologise if this
offends.

The frustrated comment I gave is from the perspective of someone who is not an
american; I don't see american californians as the moral authority of how open
source software must be developed.

It is a sad day when politics must be paramount when contributing to a foss
project. If developers wanted this burden they'd need look no further than
working in a soul-crushing multinational mega-corp.

EDIT: please do not downvote the parent comment to this. He/she has commented
to continue discussion, if you disagree please discuss, not downvote.

~~~
johnny22
> It is a sad day when politics must be paramount when contributing to a foss
> project

Politics have always been the reason for me. It depends on what you call
politics though.

I got involved with FOSS initially because of the GPL. I then found a project
whose aims I agreed with, and also had a welcoming environment.

I might contribute a one off patch here or there to some other projects, but
the ones I stay are such as those.

