On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 3:06:21 PM UTC-8, Issac Roth wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 10:14:10 AM UTC-8, Darren DeRidder wrote: > >> Relevant: There's a discussion on HN in response to Ben Noordhuis >> officially leaving Node.JS core dev. >> >> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6845286 >> > > This is an example of Joyent acting unilaterally. I'm not sure if Isaac > actually took away his committer bit, but he and Joyent seem to want Ben > out of the codebase. Ben wrote, "I'm probably going to step back from > libuv and node.js core development." The word probably is important, he > wanted to leave the option open. I talked to him before he left to go chill > out in the woods for a week and asked if he really wanted to stop working > on Node.js. He wasn't sure. He wanted to clear his head first. If he was > invited back I guess the official Node.js blog would have said so. > http://blog.nodejs.org/2013/12/03/bnoordhuis-departure/ > > The announcement of Joyent becoming explicitly commercial about Node and > of them kicking Ben off the project are on the same day. > > I agree with Isaac S. It's a well written email. There's no good reason > from Joyent's perspective for them to give up the Node.js trademark (which > is what they do own, not all of the code. They own some of the code but not > the majority.) > > I stand by my suggestions: > - people should disclose their relationships > - we work as a community to clarify the difference between community and > core (which is what Mikeal is advocating) > > > On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 10:24:33 PM UTC-8, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > >> I agreed with Bryan and have nothing to do with Joyent. Many others feel >> the same. >> > > If I read your bio on the web you are co-founder of The Node Firm who are > commercial partners of Joyent: > http://www.joyent.com/partners/the-node-firm > > Many others feel the same. >> > > And many feel the opposite. Just read around. > > You can work to unite or to polarize. I suspect you'll accuse me of being > hypocritical in that statement. My view is that I work to unite and I've > explained why I'm motivated to do so: For the success of our mobile and > node products we need Node.js to be well respected since we're based on it. > The incumbent voices like to cast me as a polarizer but that's not coming > from me on purpose - it's just a natural response by existing folks when a > new person or group shows up. > > I feel like it would add a lot of credibility to your cause of being viewed as someone who "seeks to unite" if you were to take the time to understand why you may be perceived by many as someone who has had a polarizing effect on the community thus far. I'd really appreciate it if I saw an honest and open dialogue on this subject before you continue to offer suggestions to others on how they can do the same. This post feels a lot like "do as I say, not as I do". I'm willing to accept the possibility that I'm completely misunderstanding your intent, but this is an honest response to the input I've seen from you so far. The language that I've seen coming from you surrounding Node.js and its ecosystem/community/commercial interests has felt very divisive so far (if I'm honest on a personal level).
-- -- 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.
