You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Aug 31, 2018. It is now read-only.
Repository navigation
This repository was archived by the owner on Aug 31, 2018. It is now read-only.
openness to re-merging with the Node project (in the future) #4
I'd be open to re-merging if and when the problems plaguing Node.js are resolved. Problematic people removed; use of "policy" as an excuse ended; power structures reorganized to emphasize community over tech. So far though it seems like there's little desire to fix these problems from those with the power to do so.
Reacted by juno suárez, Giovanni Bassi, Martin Bertschler Zapata, Bo Lingen, Jorge Bay, James, Hwan-Joon Choi, Matt, Ofek Azulay, Olivier G. and 18 more
Reacted by speedrun.com, Tobias Baunbæk Christensen, Michael Irigoyen, Jeremy Booker, Rafal Stozek, Ivan Goncharov, Leah, Valentin Tjoncke, Alexis Guzmán, Jake Niemiec and 31 more
Reacted by Drew Miller, Mattie Kenny, Chiri Vulpes, zhangyubaka, Lemma Brummel and Andrew Faulkner
Reacted by Justin Tamblyn, Beau Sorensen, Steven, Leah, dasu, Jake Niemiec, Adrienne L. Travis, RodrigoHahn, Eugene Yaremenko, Marvin SANT and 2 more
I just want shit to be fixed. I don't care what the project is called or who controls it as long as it serves the communities it has worked so hard to push away.
Reacted by Stephen Belanger, juno suárez, Kane York, Felipe Torres (fforres), Niki Wix Skaarup, Vidur Khanna, Kaustav Haldar, Daniel Cherubini, Aymeric Beaumet, AlexNodex and 57 more
Reacted by AlexNodex, Chiri Vulpes, Max Ulianov, ZKAI., Alberto Cole and Andrew Faulkner
Reacted by Felipe Torres (fforres), Chris Barry, Kaustav Haldar, Oskar Risberg, KahWee Teng, Aymeric Beaumet, James, Samuele V, Jorge Bay, Lucas Bento and 19 more
@styfle It’s the “statement” from a person who has generally been standing in the way of making Node.js an inclusive project, which is what this project is trying to achieve. That his behaviour was explicitly considered acceptable leadership behaviour by a majority of Node’s TSC was what sparked this fork. I don’t think there’s any more relation.
Can this just be the repo for people who want to bring their identity politics to projects? It's actually nice that we have a place to direct them and I think what you're doing here would be a good home for people who want to spend more time debating what the pronoun should be used instead of doing development
Reacted by Luke Horvat, Deyan Totev, Josh Alexy, Joseph Lawson, mipuha, Manuel Andres Garcia Vazquez, Ivan Goncharov, Alberto Cole, Bartek Paczkowski, Milton Howe and 10 more
Reacted by Jordan Harband, Kat Marchán, Jeremiah Senkpiel, Jarrod Davis, Chris Hart, Kshitij Sobti, Olivier Tassinari, Aton B, Stephen Belanger, Oleksii Orlenko and 12 more
Reacted by Manuel Andres Garcia Vazquez, Ivan Goncharov, Niles Rogoff, Luigi Taira D., wyqydsyq and Minexew
Reacted by Zetta Flow, Mirek Petricek, Hugo Abonizio and Andrew Faulkner
Reacted by Ubirajara Marsicano Neto, Josh Alexy, Manuel Andres Garcia Vazquez, Ivan Goncharov, Luigi Taira D., wyqydsyq and Minexew
@tenthirtyone you're the one bringing identity politics into it here. Everyone else is talking about trying to contribute to a project and realizing we can't even make the Working Groups we need for it. See also: documentation WG.
You are, in fact, the first person in the entire thread to make any remarks about identity politics, btw. Maybe think about that a bit, and the time you're trying to waste here while we try and get code done.
Wouldn't the number one goal be a functional product and therefore it should be tech over community?
Please be aware that I have Aspergers and can't read feelings/mood so if this offends anyone I'm sorry.
I certainly think refraining from project hostility is healthy, but I do think that there needs to be a workable plan if re-merging either is a very long road (or (hopefully not) isn't possible).
Wouldn't the number one goal be a functional product and therefore it should be tech over community?
This is a really good question and one that merits some reflection. Ayo (node) is a language and/or set of tools for the developer community at large. While machines may execute the code, the product's purpose, just like most other products, are (generally speaking) meant for humans to create tools and products for other humans. In other words, the community and tech both exist to create better tech for better communities.
You shouldn't ever have to compromise one for the other. Unfortunately, community is often compromised as it is a heavily undervalued component of open source development. Thanks for bringing this up and please ask more clarifying questions about this if you'd like!
Doesn't emphasizing community over tech sounds counter-productive? Node.js community exists only because of their recognized and well-known product. The product is recognized and used only because it solves people's problems and allow them to generate new ideas and do their work faster. Without such product community is just a group of people with common beliefs.
I as a customer shouldn't put much thoughts on who built it, as long as it solves my issues and make me productive. Just as I don't want to turn over every stone on the way to my goal.
That's why I believe the customer should be put on top of all things. Product next to it. And all the rest after first two things.
You shouldn't ever have to compromise one for the other.
Please review my comment above. If you don't like hearing about the social issues surrounding the tech, you as the "customer" can always opt-out of the discussion instead of chiming in on a thread on GitHub...
Node.js community exists only because of their recognized and well-known product.
@vtambourine node.js only exists because people built it.
Nothing is more important than people, and certainly not a software project. This is something that ayo seeks to make more explicit because doing otherwise has led to people being marginalised and mistreated on the very basis of their existence, because their existence was deemed of lesser importance than the "tech" .
It's also a bit of false dichotomy to assume you can only have tech or only have community, they are not mutually exclusive.
You are also not a customer of node or ayo. They are projects/software that you are free to use (noting any licensing/rights etc) and participate in (following social and community norms), and equally you are also free to not choose them and not participate.
There can be no tech without people, but there is definitely people without tech. I'd like to imagine this isn't a controversial thing to say, but we do exist in an industry that puts humans on death marches on a regular basis so... shrug
because of their inability to change anything about their organizational structure
I would be interested in your suggestions for a better "organizational structure", I think we are always open to constructive input. Why do you think the project is unable to change its structure, despite its efforts to do so in a way which benefits the community? (See e.g. nodejs/node#15366, nodejs/TSC#339, nodejs/TSC#317 for examples of relevant changes within the last weeks.)
@tniessen There has been much written both here in this thread, other github issues, discord, and https://github.com/ayojs/ayo/blob/latest/GOVERNANCE.md about what we think a better organizational structure might look like (and this is a topic that we continue to work on).
As for why nodejs seems unable to change, it's a bit outside the the scope of this project but this issue #7 is probably as good a summary as you'll find here.
I'm going to close this because I think the answer is "we are open to this if node fixes some pressing issues" and "we are maintaining compatibility, we will let you know if this changes".
As always, if I'm wrong on closing this, feel free to tell me / reopen it.
Activity
Qard commentedon Aug 22, 2017
I'd be open to re-merging if and when the problems plaguing Node.js are resolved. Problematic people removed; use of "policy" as an excuse ended; power structures reorganized to emphasize community over tech. So far though it seems like there's little desire to fix these problems from those with the power to do so.
Fishrock123 commentedon Aug 22, 2017
This is very similar to Node pre-io.js fork.
I agree that the goal should be when the things the fork is being made over are resolved (even if by a merge), if they are.
zkat commentedon Aug 22, 2017
I just want shit to be fixed. I don't care what the project is called or who controls it as long as it serves the communities it has worked so hard to push away.
Fishrock123 commentedon Aug 22, 2017
Maybe goal is the wrong wording - we were always open to re-merging if the stuff from pre-io.js node was fixed.
varjmes commentedon Aug 23, 2017
I second Kat's sentiments and also like this sentence.
styfle commentedon Aug 25, 2017
Is this related? nodejs/CTC#165 (comment)
addaleax commentedon Aug 25, 2017
@styfle It’s the “statement” from a person who has generally been standing in the way of making Node.js an inclusive project, which is what this project is trying to achieve. That his behaviour was explicitly considered acceptable leadership behaviour by a majority of Node’s TSC was what sparked this fork. I don’t think there’s any more relation.
[-]is re-merging with the Node project a goal?[/-][+]openness to re-merging with the Node project (in the future)[/+]tenthirtyone commentedon Aug 25, 2017
Can this just be the repo for people who want to bring their identity politics to projects? It's actually nice that we have a place to direct them and I think what you're doing here would be a good home for people who want to spend more time debating what the pronoun should be used instead of doing development
csvan commentedon Aug 25, 2017
@tenthirtyone you're pretty much demonstrating why this fork exists. Congratulations.
zkat commentedon Aug 25, 2017
@tenthirtyone you're the one bringing identity politics into it here. Everyone else is talking about trying to contribute to a project and realizing we can't even make the Working Groups we need for it. See also: documentation WG.
You are, in fact, the first person in the entire thread to make any remarks about identity politics, btw. Maybe think about that a bit, and the time you're trying to waste here while we try and get code done.
jewsh commentedon Aug 26, 2017
Wouldn't the number one goal be a functional product and therefore it should be tech over community?
Please be aware that I have Aspergers and can't read feelings/mood so if this offends anyone I'm sorry.
vsemozhetbyt commentedon Aug 26, 2017
FWIW, but I am not happy with statements like:
I think both sides should try to abstain from any slightest hostility to make re-merging easier.
Fishrock123 commentedon Aug 26, 2017
I certainly think refraining from project hostility is healthy, but I do think that there needs to be a workable plan if re-merging either is a very long road (or (hopefully not) isn't possible).
1 remaining item
aqrln commentedon Aug 26, 2017
@Fishrock123
sudocurse commentedon Sep 5, 2017
@jewsh:
This is a really good question and one that merits some reflection. Ayo (node) is a language and/or set of tools for the developer community at large. While machines may execute the code, the product's purpose, just like most other products, are (generally speaking) meant for humans to create tools and products for other humans. In other words, the community and tech both exist to create better tech for better communities.
You shouldn't ever have to compromise one for the other. Unfortunately, community is often compromised as it is a heavily undervalued component of open source development. Thanks for bringing this up and please ask more clarifying questions about this if you'd like!
vtambourine commentedon Sep 8, 2017
Doesn't emphasizing community over tech sounds counter-productive? Node.js community exists only because of their recognized and well-known product. The product is recognized and used only because it solves people's problems and allow them to generate new ideas and do their work faster. Without such product community is just a group of people with common beliefs.
I as a customer shouldn't put much thoughts on who built it, as long as it solves my issues and make me productive. Just as I don't want to turn over every stone on the way to my goal.
That's why I believe the customer should be put on top of all things. Product next to it. And all the rest after first two things.
sudocurse commentedon Sep 8, 2017
Please review my comment above. If you don't like hearing about the social issues surrounding the tech, you as the "customer" can always opt-out of the discussion instead of chiming in on a thread on GitHub...
sandfox commentedon Sep 8, 2017
@vtambourine node.js only exists because people built it.
Nothing is more important than people, and certainly not a software project. This is something that ayo seeks to make more explicit because doing otherwise has led to people being marginalised and mistreated on the very basis of their existence, because their existence was deemed of lesser importance than the "tech" .
It's also a bit of false dichotomy to assume you can only have tech or only have community, they are not mutually exclusive.
You are also not a customer of node or ayo. They are projects/software that you are free to use (noting any licensing/rights etc) and participate in (following social and community norms), and equally you are also free to not choose them and not participate.
zkat commentedon Sep 8, 2017
There can be no tech without people, but there is definitely people without tech. I'd like to imagine this isn't a controversial thing to say, but we do exist in an industry that puts humans on death marches on a regular basis so... shrug
cronvel commentedon Sep 16, 2017
Hello!
So? Are you aiming for re-merging with Node, or are you moving on your own way?
If not (re-merging), will you maintain compatibility with Node or not?
tniessen commentedon Sep 16, 2017
I would be interested in your suggestions for a better "organizational structure", I think we are always open to constructive input. Why do you think the project is unable to change its structure, despite its efforts to do so in a way which benefits the community? (See e.g. nodejs/node#15366, nodejs/TSC#339, nodejs/TSC#317 for examples of relevant changes within the last weeks.)
sandfox commentedon Sep 17, 2017
@tniessen There has been much written both here in this thread, other github issues, discord, and https://github.com/ayojs/ayo/blob/latest/GOVERNANCE.md about what we think a better organizational structure might look like (and this is a topic that we continue to work on).
As for why nodejs seems unable to change, it's a bit outside the the scope of this project but this issue #7 is probably as good a summary as you'll find here.
varjmes commentedon Sep 19, 2017
I'm going to close this because I think the answer is "we are open to this if node fixes some pressing issues" and "we are maintaining compatibility, we will let you know if this changes".
As always, if I'm wrong on closing this, feel free to tell me / reopen it.
test: allow tests to pass without internet
test: allow tests to pass without internet