I don't see anything wrong with the tweets. I don't think Rod is a bad person, he's been involved with Node.js for years.

Try working on an open source project for 5 years and then we can talk about altruism.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the tweets too. And it seems the Node Technical Steering Committee had similar thoughts, since they rejected the proposal of expelling Rod.

The 60%/40% split on both proposed sanctions indicates that the TSC had no simple unified view of the type you infer.

Some people think and others just react, it's good to know that the majority of people on the Node.js technical committee are thinkers.

Wow, that's an incredibly rude and narrow-minded comment.

Why "rude"?

It's rude to suggest that the Yes-voters are non-thinkers.

> Try working on an open source project for 5 years

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the people forking Node here are trying to do, though perhaps not with a particular time limit.

To be honest, for those not (already) involved in this whole debate, it is very difficult to make an informed opinion here.

What I see is a screenshot of a GitHub issue (https://twitter.com/ohhoe/status/899748838302302212) which was already redacted and does no longer provide any links. Tweet in support of "anti-CoC article" is there (https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841) but that alone would not assert a "harmful person" in my opinion.

I understand the fork is not on political reasons which may be very well grounded. But I don't think they are not explained to the public well enough. There must be a clear answer to "Why should I care?" but there is not. This will probably lead to ignorance and dismissal.

That "anti-COC" article is as anti-COC as James Damore's memo was anti-diversity.

What it does is highlight how speech codes can be used by the socially hyperfluent to bully and dominate the less fluent, by placing an unreasonable burden on a speaker to have 100% prediction accuracy of every potential negative response.

http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-spe...

That SJWs call it a strawman is just another example of how they always refuse to follow their own rules of empathy and inclusion.

James Damore's memo was anti-diversity.

There's a huge difference between anti-diversity, and anti-forced-diversity for the sake of diversity.

I don't see why this is so complicated, other than perhaps it seems SJW types can't fathom the idea that hiring managers are actually capable of talking to a person, getting to know them, and then capable of deciding whether or not they're qualified for the job without checking off a list of what should be considered irrelevant qualifiers.... Skin color, penis girth, propensity for future development of diabeetus, etc.

Also, it's quite clear that you didn't read the memo at all. Maybe the Buzzfeed condensed op-ed on it. Did he have some inflammatory opinions that maybe aren't correct? Hell yeah, but they're his opinions, he said a lot of other stuff that was entirely poignant, relevant, and accurate.

This yes/no true/false BS has got to stop. You don't get to hone in on somebody's one solitary opinion that might open up conversation to a "non-safe space", cry misogynist/racist/rapist, and then auto-dismiss the rest of their arguments like you've discovered some sort of irl Konami Konversation Kode.

That's terribad debating and awful human communication.

James Demore's firing really only proves that he was mostly right.

Maybe under diversity's new Orwellian definition

Going through those links it's still not obvious what's happening. @rvagg has some kind of leadership position, has some strong opinions about codes of conduct (not the only one), and they're forking the project for that?

What?

It is unclear. Seemed like he has repeatedly used a language that some community members found offensive.

His stance against Code of Conduct, as evident by this Tweet: https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841 and follow up comments were considered inappropriate by some.

Even more details here: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310

""" The TSC members were not able to reach a natural consensus on the steps forward so a vote was called on two specific questions:

(A) Should Rod be removed from the TSC: Yes or No (B) Should Rod be asked to voluntarily resign from the TSC: Yes or No

There are 13 members of the TSC. 10 members voted, two abstained, and Rod did not participate.

The vote came down 60% against removing Rod from the TSC and 60% against asking Rod to voluntarily resign. """

Rod: "C'mon mate, did you even read it? This is worthy of discussion, not simplistic dismissal". It doesn't seem a heated or offensive discussion to me. He just posted an article and was willing to discuss it with the community.

They had a vote to remove him, it failed. Move on!

People are free to leave a community they feel unwelcome in.

If it's an open source software project, they are also free to fork the software and make their own project around it. While, obviously, two parallel projects divided by interpersonal issues isn't ideal and likely duplicates efforts, it's better than losing the work of either of the factions, so, given the existence of the social issues, it's quite possibly the best acheivable outcome.

Precisely.

I'm just wondering what would've happened if Rod was forced to resign and the other <50% voters who voted against it. Maybe a fork of NodeJS, but this time from Rod's fellows?

Well at least they didn't delete the code of conduct:

https://github.com/ayojs/ayo/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

Who are they talking about?

Rod Vagg

https://twitter.com/rvagg

https://github.com/rvagg