Aisle 3, behind the WebOS devices. On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Luke Arduini wrote:
> I would like to buy one node core developer team for cheap, please. Where can > I purchase these programmers? > > On Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Stephen Belanger wrote: > > > > The only scenario I can think of being at all possible is that somehow > > Joyent manages to screw up and go bankrupt, then someone picks up node and > > the team for cheap. > > > > On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Isaac Schlueter wrote: > > > > > Issac, > > > > > > > We think it hurts Node.js adoption for it to be perceived to be owned > > > > by Joyent. > > > > > > That's a bold claim to make of the platform that is *still* growing > > > faster in adoption than any platform in history. Can you back it up with > > > data? Where SHOULD Node.js be adopted? Please be specific. Name a real > > > company that is *not* using Node.js because Joyent owns it. Because > > > plenty of companies seem to have no problem adopting Node. > > > > > > The reason it's "perceived" to be owned by Joyent is that it IS owned by > > > Joyent, and most people are capable of perceiving such a thing, because > > > they can read, and they know what "ownership" is. If you disagree, then > > > disagree. Say "Joyent does not own Node.js", and make the case for it. > > > Stop with the weasel words, it's weak writing, and it's gross. > > > > > > > > > But since this isn't the first time it's come up, I'd like to suggest you > > > actually follow through with this. > > > > > > So what would be the first step to putting Node.js in a foundation? > > > > > > Since Apache (the only foundation I'm aware of that does trademark > > > protection) is off the table, would you suggest that we genericide the > > > mark? Personally, I think that's a bad idea, and I don't think I'm > > > alone. And what has Eclipse done to earn our trust? > > > > > > ** Obstacle 1: Convince Node.js community that genericide is preferable > > > to trademark protection, and that Eclipse is preferable to Joyent. > > > > > > Nontrivial, at least. > > > > > > Let's say that we don't/can't do that, we'd have to create a new > > > foundation. That's not cheap. Conservative estimates put it at around > > > 1-2 million a year for legal, marketing, hiring a few developers to work > > > on Node.js. > > > > > > After all, you're claiming that the foundation is *better* than Joyent, > > > so I'd assume that means that it does *more* than Joyent does for Node. > > > Hiring TJ Fontaine, me, Emily Tanaka-Delgado, another dev, and some legal > > > is a bare minimum, even if we do put it in Eclipse. (Why would Joyent > > > invest so much more than anyone else, in a product they don't own?) > > > > > > ** Obstacle 2: Come up with $1MM per year in recurring income. > > > > > > It's easy to say "Big companies would pay." So, which ones? Do you have > > > contacts there, with the authority to write checks? Have you negotiated > > > terms under which they'd do so? Are they any more agreeable to the > > > Node.js community than Joyent, who's biggest sin is "doesn't do enough", > > > and has a long reputation of behaving well in OSS communities? > > > > > > Show me the money. > > > > > > And this brings us to the biggest obstacle: the fact that Joyent actually > > > DOES "own Node.js", and in fact, generates a LOT of their revenue from > > > the reputation of being the cloud provider that is most highly focused on > > > Node.js as a first-class citizen. (Just ask the folks at Voxer, Walmart, > > > etc.) It would be a breach of fiduciary duty for them to just give it > > > away to a foundation for no reason. Unconscionable! > > > > > > So, what's the pitch? How is it in Joyent's interest to give away their > > > cash cow? > > > > > > ** Obstacle 3: Sell Joyent on giving up Node.js. > > > > > > Complaining isn't enough. Show how it is in *Joyent's* financial > > > interest to give it up. Perhaps you could purchase it from them. But > > > with what money? Do you know how much it would cost? Do you have buyers > > > lined up? > > > > > > > > > I'm not saying that these obstacles are insurmountable. Nothing is > > > impossible! But I see a rather daunting and cash-intensive project, and > > > no one with deep enough pockets who is motivated to pursue it. What's in > > > it for them? Their logo on a website? Why not just hire a core > > > developer for much LESS money, and get involved that way, which is > > -- > -- > 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] > (mailto:[email protected]) > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > (mailto:[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] > (mailto:[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.
