Joyents actions last week weakened the perception of nodejs. This makes it harder to continue the growth we had so far. Right when we are "crossing the chasm" and showing its a viable piece of technology for more traditional companies. This makes our work harder and made everyone's contributions less likely to be relevant.
The attempt to penetrate consulting market some days after made matters worse cause now it's a conflict of interest of having joyent run the project. Plus made last week seem extremely political. Joyent is a infrastructure company and that's why node worked so far. They are (were?) not a node company; they use node. I disagree with more senior members of the community saying things are ok. They are not. This community is not about maintaining status quo, speak your mind but most importantly think. For many of us node is a big part of our life. Stewardship is about responsibility not power. (brain spasm: this whole story is interesting replacing frodo for joyent in lord of the rings) When this changes it's time to take your contributions elsewhere. Open source is about improving the world and ultimately save duplicated work by sharing. It's a wonderful thing and if people want to make it a joke, let it be their joke and we go on for other adventures. That's what Ben did, in his shoes I would have done the same. (except I would have merged that PR in two seconds but thats a different topic) I hope the upcoming actions of Joyent reassure me this was a a glitch and the future is bright. So far not a glimpse of humility. But they still have time. Ps. I have deliberately not talked about anything else since joyent and the meaning stewardship is what is being discussed here. But that doesn't mean I liked all the other stuff that happened. I didnt. Also the ASF is really not a good idea as everyone already said. On Wednesday, December 4, 2013, Issac Roth wrote: > This is Issac (the bald one) from StrongLoop. We're active sponsors of the > Node.js project in core, modules, meetups, evangelism, etc, but not in any > kind of leadership way like Joyent. > > We think Node.js should move to a foundation. (Eclipse or Mozilla, not > Apache.) We think it hurts Node.js adoption for it to be perceived to be > owned by Joyent. > Our business is an mBaaS based on Node.js and we want Node.js to be widely > adopted for our own success. > > Some developers don't want to contribute to something they feel is owned > by a corporation. Some companies won't approve adoption of Node because > they're concerned that its future is uncertain since it's owned by a small > private company. They ask, "what if Joyent is acquired by our competitor? > Or by insert-big-evil-co-here." We can explain how the community can fork > in that case, but you have to be sophisticated about open source to > understand that logic chain and most people don't. > > Uncertainty creates concern, which gives people a reason to not use Node. > Broader adoption of Node leads to its continued support and progress and I > think most of us want that. The current situation doesn't make the future > certain and it doesn't make governance transparent (because Joyent can make > decisions unilaterally.) Newcomers don't realize that Joyent has been good > so far and how can they trust that they'll be good in the future. > > Finally, the alignment of interests isn't as pure as it could be. When you > read posts or hear speakers, try to map who has a commercial relationship > with Joyent. Many of the most outspoken community members do. That may or > may not taint their opinions - it’s not transparent. > > All that said, there is too much commercial interest for Joyent in owning > Node.js (it is after all an asset with enterprise value), and I suspect the > team feels they have earned the right to own it due to their stewardship to > this point. For these reasons alone I doubt they'll let it go. > > We can do stuff to change the harmful perception without asking Joyent to > do something their investors and history won't let them do: > > - We can distance Node.js a little from Joyent, and hopefully they will > even help with this. A neutral Node.js is one that more people can get > behind without question. > > - Posters can disclose their commercial relationships with Joyent if any. > > - We can be more explicit about the difference between node.js core, > where Joyent has special jurisdiction, and community where they're like the > rest of us. > > What do you think? > > -- > -- > Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ > Posting guidelines: > https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[email protected]');> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > 'nodejs%[email protected]');> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "nodejs" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > 'nodejs%[email protected]');>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
