That Ayo fork thing? #14989
Comments
mscdex
added
meta
As far as I know, only nebrius and pup decided to leave the Node.js project. (Not @-mentioning them because I'm not sure if they would want to be involved in this thread.) |
I know this has already kind of been answered, but: All of the CTC members who resigned from the TSC, me included, remain on the CTC & on the project for now. Your other questions might be a bit vague for giving good answers. :) |
|
All I know is that I'm not leaving. I think a fork is a productive way to resolve conflicts in value priorities between project members. |
|
I'm perfectly content with the current leadership and I don't think I'm going anywhere. I apologize if I'm unclear about what I'm asking - but this is really confusing as a collaborator. |
|
Forks happen. According to GitHub there are currently 7,647 Forks of Node.js out there in the world ;-) . This is Open Source Land where forks are really nothing to be worried about or afraid of. People work on code where they want to work on code. I'm not particularly worried about it. |
|
I am not sure this is the same fork as the other 7,647... |
|
This is like 7,647 childbirths and 1 family separation. I would not be happy about this last one. |
|
@vsemozhetbyt I'd treat it not as a "family separation" but as a great opportunity to explore ideas in both government structure and, maybe, even technical decisions that would be too radical or breaking to be experimented upon in the upstream. In other words, not only I think it is not a "threat" to the Node.js project, but, to the contrary, there are ways the project and the community will benefit from this fork. |
|
I do not just want this to be perceived lightheartedly by any side, like no big deal. Especially by the staying side. |
|
@vsemozhetbyt How do you see it different? |
|
@RReverser Sorry, I do not understand the question. Can you elaborate? |
|
@vsemozhetbyt You said:
That's why I'm asking - what do you see different about this one? Seems like just yet another fork. |
AFAICT it's a fork with the intention to produce a different product, and work under a different governing system. Also it was not made with the goal of merging (but that may change) They already appear to have different concept of openness (I'm assuming to minimize noise while they establish themselves) |
|
@RReverser I am not aware if any of these forks was a response to some painful situation and was connected with significant stepping down of core Node.js collaborators and commotion in the community. |
I’m linking the actual thread here that you cite, because I really can’t see how you’d read that out of it. |
|
I think we shouldn't discuss any of 7000+ existing forks here, that would be too much. |
|
I think given a lot of us here joined in the io.js period when we were a fork I would not downplay the power of forks. Remember, Node.js itself is taken from a fork. I bet that out of 7000+ forks of Node.js in GitHub the vast majority are not real projects. I think it's probably more like:
Since this is the latter - I definitely think it's worth discussing (openly). Good governance got us so far - let's keep being open in our discussions. |
They are probably not. This one is probably not as well. This looks more of a statement than a genuine attempt to create a fork. In any case, this issue is at the very least not actionable at all. People are free to create forks if they want to do so, there is nothing we can do about it. |
Seconding @addaleax, I am not sure how you came to that conclusion.
The repository and its members are currently undergoing harassment, so we limited conversation for 24 hours. I have tried to let people know in the repo in some of the issues where difficulties have been had. Apologies I could not be more transparent at this time but I don't feel like linking to the horrible things being said :) |
|
@vkurchatkin I'm not sure if it's a genuine attempt or a statement. I agree it's a lot less clear cut than it was with io.js . I created an issue because a lot of people who are involved in the project don't really have any reliable and open source of information about those things. I was told that this is the right place to do so but if you disagree please do bring that up. If people are creating forks then I want to know why because that's a learning opportunity. I don't want to make anyone uncomfortable or create tension between sides - I just want to know what's going on. |
By whom? Are you really saying Node.js organization members are harassing you right now so much that you had to explicitly lock them out of the fork's repo? I realize that the TSC vote created a lot of tension but I had no idea it has escalated to the point of feeling threatened by constant harassment. I think being transparent can do a lot of good in this case for the 95% of the project who have no idea what's going on. |
The infamous reddit anti-sjw crowd; this has nothing to do with Node org members as a group. |
You should probably ask said people in their repository. |
|
@benjamingr As @addaleax says. I'm the one who locked it, and I did it last night in reaction to people pointing out that this was making the rounds of KiA/GG/HN circles, and we were starting to see a trickle of trolls and bad actors. There's no rush on these conversations, and they'll be fully publicly-accessible once we don't have to defend ourselves against the piss-colored tide of eggplant trolls (again). If you want to participate, you can ask any of us to get added to the org, and you'll be able to post in the meantime. Assuming you're not intending on blasting the issue tracker with 🍆 |
we're trying to be as transparent as possible! but this is definitely harder when:
|
|
@addaleax yuck. I don't really interact with
I don't really know who said people are (since no one is saying) and the fork repo is locked. I would assume that people who know what's going on would be here and the issue is relevant to the project - there is nowhere else I'm aware of to discuss it.
Can't you limit discussion to everyone who is a Node.js org member or wrote a pull request? I think it would filter out the trolls pretty well but still enable discussion. I still have no idea what's going on except for that one blog post - and I don't know if I want to participate because of that. I'm pretty happy with Node.js overall and I haven't experienced negativity - but I don't have a Reddit or Twitter account so there's that. |
I think it’s okay for me to say that people active so far include me, @zkat, @pup, @varjmes, @Fishrock123 and @nebrius
I don’t know, have you seen nodejs/TSC#310 / nodejs/community-committee#111 ? |
|
@benjamingr if you're unfamiliar with the tools GitHub provides for this, here's a screenshot of the settings I enabled. And again, perhaps it's healthy to wait more than 24 hours before shouting from the rooftops about "censorship". Look at it this way: IO.js was done secretly, behind closed doors, for months before it was made public, and even then only a few people had access to it. You could see this as a step in the direction of being open from the get-go. That means you get to see the initial parts of a community, where things are relatively fuzzy, disorganized, and don't have a lot of concrete direction as initial folks join. |
The repo was open for all until 10am this morning (GMT) when I was alerted to harassment that the repo and its members are experiencing. In 24 hours it will be rescinded. I cannot make this any clearer. |
|
@vsemozhetbyt ...
Sure it is. Each of those was made for one reason or another, most with the idea in mind that the person or people forking has some ideas on how to make Node.js better. Heck, I have a private fork of Node.js in which I've rewritten half of the thing, including all the governance, just to play around with various ideas! It's how I brainstorm things. It's a nightmare to keep in sync tho and I often find myself throwing it out and starting over with a fresh hard reset on master. This latest effort appears to be no different. At the current time there's really nothing there to evaluate so it's difficult to say if anything concrete will come of it. Literally all that's been done so far is editing stuff out of the README and renaming stuff. As with all things, we'll just have to wait and see. If concrete ideas do emerge that yield improvements to either the technical or governance side of things, then we can and should absolutely look at merging those back upstream. Concrete proposals are always a great thing to have and I'm excited to see if anything emerges from this. I will say that discussing any moderation issues that repo may be having at the moment is off topic for the Node.js issue tracker unless that harassment happens to be coming from a Node.js collaborator, in which case we can open an appropriate moderation issue. |
I have - nodejs/TSC#310 doesn't mention the fork. In nodejs/community-committee#111 Rachel wrote when asked about the fork:
Which to me seemed pretty hostile and indicative that that would not be a good place to ask about it. I did not want to start unwanted discussion there.
That's fair, it would have been nice if the repo actually said that in the README.
See this comment, I would also be concerned if you forked - especially now that I know you've already rewritten half 😆 |
|
@jasnell whether more than some discussion comes of it is dependent on whether Node Core and the Node Foundation drastically re-evaluate their governance, their enforcement policy, and show results soon. I think recent events have made it clearer that safe, incremental changes are no longer viable, and nothing short of outright removal of several members from leadership and a complete re-evaluation of the governance structure of Node Core itself will suffice to prevent this sort of thing from happening. If it comes to that, Ayo will work hard to find a good alternative governance structure itself, and ideally supplant the Node Core project much like io.js did: this isn't an "I'm forking to submit a PR" fork. This is a "Node Core no longer works for us, and if nothing changes, we will create a completely separate viable alternative intended to replace it." Sorry if that wasn't clear. I understand it doesn't look like much 48 hours after an initial fork, but I'm sure io.js didn't either. I'm tired of Node Core being so deeply ineffective at dealing with humans, and technical contributions are not all that hard to come by. Specially when you have your own current-and-former members sliding over to the other side to help out. |
|
@addaleax as I said earlier I think the fork is a good idea, and I want to find a way to (1) help the fork (2) help resolve the problems in node.js. I should have included a link to the original thread. The issue's title "is re-merging with the Node project a goal?" and that fact that it's still open mean the conversation did not end. No criticism, just stating that IMHO it's not "just another fork". |
|
@refack much like our approach with others right now: I've invited you and @benjamingr to the org, which should give you the ability to comment. The temporary limits are to protect from ill-intentioned randos until the fire dies down a bit. |
I personally at least did not say censorship. I assumed you are being harassed and said so. My comment was trying to be objective observation, but I guess it's impossible to convey objectivity at this time. Again, I think the fork is a good thing. I hope you succeed. I want to find a way to help.@zkat Just saw you last comment. Thank you! |
|
Given that this repo isn't the place to talk about recruiting people to go work on that fork, @benjamingr ... has your original question been answered? Would you like this thread to remain open? |
|
Thanks, I think we had some good discussion and can close this now. |
|
ayojs wasn't like iojs at all. at the time, the goal of iojs is to keep up with v8 update. as far as i know, ayojs difference this time is only |
|
For the curious, there is a WIP PR with a values statement from the Ayo.js community that might shed some light on what we're actually hoping to change: ayojs/ayo#15. I get that on the surface this looks like it's focused on a single failed vote, but what I consider to be the dysfunction that led to it runs much deeper, and involves long-running concerns with Node Core and the Foundation. |
|
Has the limiting conversation for non-members been prolonged? |
|
@vsemozhetbyt Yes, there’s still a lot of traffic being pointed at the repo. We’ve been somewhat freely giving access to the repo to people who ask, though. |
|
@addaleax where can I ask? |
|
@ljharb: The Ayo Discord. See ayojs/ayo#12 (comment) |
|
Right now the “only collaborators” restriction is lifted anyway (it’s still “no freshly created accounts”), and while we will revisit that if things become problematic, it seems to be working out for now. |
Sounds inclusive to me. Should add this to your "values" statement. 🙄 |
Hi, so I just saw: https://sourcecontribute.com/2017/08/22/node-js-has-forked-into-ayo/
As a collaborator:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: