
The Truth About Rod Vagg - maxharris
https://medium.com/@rvagg/the-truth-about-rod-vagg-f063f6a53557
======
wolco
"It is evidence to others that Node.js may not be serious about its commitment
to community and inclusivity."

When a project focuses on other things unrelated to the core reason why they
exist things like this happen.

To the outside world these issues seem unrelated to why they use the language.

Inclusivity seems more like creating documentation in different languages
rather than kick someone out over a retweet with an acceptable message to the
average node user.

~~~
curtisblaine
Does Node _need_ to be inclusive anyways? We're taking for granted that
inclusivity is good for a technical project just because it feels "right", and
because they told us that it is right. But does it help or does it harm? Does
it really help to take people onboard who are less technically and more
politically oriented? Does it really help to hold down criticism to not offend
anyone, risking a situations where points are never made and emphasis is never
placed? We have an example of a successful and long lived open source project
- Linux - which is famous for being exclusive and "snarky". Yet, it has taken
over the server and embedded world. Would it have been the same if it had a
committee kicking out and reprimanding people for not adhering to a Code of
Conduct where everyone has to be kind and mindful and avoid criticizing the
way things are done? Because people, when they're working, will eventually be
not nice to each other. They will write snarky comments and they will be rough
and they will always prefer qualities related to the work they're doing
(technical / architectural proficiency) to qualities related to the social and
politics sphere. Technical projects are technical, deal with it.

~~~
zimpenfish
> Yet, [Linux] has taken over the server and embedded world

I would posit that this is nothing to do with Linus being a dickbag to people
and everything to do with a) they focused on "getting shit working" over
"purity", b) were (as best I can tell) much more open to contributions and
partnerships than the _BSDs, and c) expanded rapidly to cover just about every
little niche there was.

Any of the _BSDs (or other OSs, I guess) could have had the same viral
trajectory if they'd focused on the same things instead of their ideological
purity, code stability, et al.

> But does it help or does it harm?

I believe there are several studies that show increasing diversity can improve
technical projects because this reduces "situations where points are never
made".

> Does it really help to take people onboard who are less technically and more
> politically oriented?

That depends - does your project exist in a world that contains politics? Is
it meant to solve problems for human beings? Both of those benefit from
diversity because, and this will shock you, a very small percentage of the
world is comprised of privileged white dudes.

~~~
curtisblaine
> a) they focused on "getting shit working" over "purity"

Also, they focused on "getting shit working" over "making sure to not offend
anyone".

> b) were (as best I can tell) much more open to contributions and
> partnerships than the BSDs

And they managed to be more "open to contributions" despite having a "dickbag"
as benevolent dictator and an "hostile environment" (as you probably would put
it) to beginner devs. And not having a CoC for 20 years. So maybe it's not
terribly essential to be forcibly inclusive in order to be open to
contributions?

> c) expanded rapidly to cover just about every little niche there was.

Again, they managed that _being a non-diverse environment_ , by most meters of
(modern) judgement. So maybe it's not so essential to be inclusive when you
manage to cover _all_ niches in no time? It was so exclusive that managed to
cover _everyone 's_ needs? How's that even possible?

> I believe there are several studies that show increasing diversity can
> improve technical projects because this reduces "situations where points are
> never made".

Indeed, but you have to consider that being overly-inclusive opens the doors
to bike-shedding and, for example, wanting to exclude perfectly capable
programmers just because they communicate aggressively. I believe that more
points are made (and I don't find difficult to believe studies prove that),
but are highly capable people valued correctly in such an environment? Is it
an _overall_ gain, in all aspects?

> That depends - does your project exist in a world that contains politics?

A lot of stuff exist in a world that contains politics, but doesn't have to be
political. Is medicine political? Obviously yes. Are you "including" surgeons
based on their right to be there? No.

But I concede that there should be an overall body with actual powers
controlling that a series of Code of Conducts, known and approved by anyone
(by representation) are respected. And that this body should be periodically
elected democratically. Oh, wait... we have one - it's called "Government" and
the CoC are called "laws".

Having that, do we really need to tell people on Github to avoid telling
others to "stop saying bullshit" because it's offensive? Do we need to make
kindness mandatory? Do we need to favour inclusion over technical prowess?
Sounds like the recipe for a disaster.

~~~
zimpenfish
> more "open to contributions"

Yes - and Linus wasn't involved in most of them (since he delegated subtrees)
which makes your "despite having a dickbag in charge" completely irrelevant.

> Maybe it's not terribly essential to be forcibly inclusive in order to be
> open to contributions

But you'll note I specifically said "more open [...] than the BSDs" \- it
wasn't an absolute. The Linux kernel is very much not open to contributions
per se -but- compared with the *BSDs etc. it is a paragon of welcome.

> exclude perfectly capable programmers just because they communicate
> aggressively

Being able to communicate effectively - and that generally excludes
"aggressively" \- is an important part of being a capable (and better)
programmer.

> Are you "including" surgeons based on their right to be there? No.

What?

> you have to consider that being overly-inclusive opens the doors to bike-
> shedding

Ironic that you call it "bike-shedding" when that was coined from a project
that wasn't "overly-inclusive". Almost as if your link between the two is
fanciful nonsense.

It's clear your only argument is "I don't like inclusivity" and that's fine -
you're on the wrong side of history and doomed to fail.

~~~
curtisblaine
> which makes your "despite having a dickbag in charge" completely irrelevant

So not having a CoC and having a dickbag in charge is OK? Cool! QED!

> Being able to communicate effectively - and that generally excludes
> "aggressively"

It doesn't. Aggressivity doesn't exclude efficiency. Aggressivity is a human
interaction with a purpose. If used correctly it can express emphasis with
amazing efficiency.

> Ironic that you call it "bike-shedding" when that was coined from a project
> that wasn't "overly-inclusive".

Bike-shedding is a reality in non-inclusive project like FreeBSD. Now imagine
in "inclusive" projects where every word has to be carefully weighted in order
to not offend anyone. People fighting not only over the color of the bike
shed, but also on the political undertones of supporting bikes, on the
percentage of male and/or white bike riders, all while constantly accusing
each other of being threatening. Exponential bullshitting and no work done :)

> It's clear your only argument is "I don't like inclusivity"

Actually, I like it. But, in a technical project, it should always come after
the actual "getting shit done" part.

> you're on the wrong side of history and doomed to fail.

Am I? I was there in the 90s, when riot grrrls were all the shit and PC
peaked. I wasn't terribly impressed back then and I'm not impressed now :)

------
nailer
Half the case here has been assisted by the removal of details for the thread.
Unless you read the archived version with working links (available online but
also reproduced in this article) you'd have no idea what Rod actually tweeted.

Linking to a Quilette article and screen capping abuse you receive doesn't
mean you're a 'known hostile' and all the various hyperbole that's been around
in the last couple of days.

------
lord_jim
(after reading through
[https://github.com/nodejs/board/issues/58](https://github.com/nodejs/board/issues/58)
and other issues related to this situation)

The Github comment revision needs to stop. It makes it impossible for people
who were not involved in the original conversation to understand what actually
happened. Without a full archive of all revisions, you cannot even judge if
the edits were made in good faith or if the current text represents the
author's original intent. It casts doubt on everything.

The whole mess is even worse on long threads like the ones linked to. Editing
a comment that other users responded to can make the responding comments look
silly or stupid, or completely change the meaning of their response.

This is mostly a process thing but Github also needs to improve how edits are
handled.

------
zaphirplane
This story is everywhere, i don't feel you are drumming up support by this.
The options of the responses seem negative to the ppl behind the fork

~~~
nailer
Is 'you' Rod, Max or the people behind the fork? Having trouble parsing your
comment.

