[chis]

It's insane that we might reach a point where people install different branches of a project based on their political leanings...

I think the main takeaway here is that a Code of Conduct, while valuable, has to be treated carefully. A lot of these projects agreed to a Code of Conduct just to appease a certain faction of their devs, and are now seeing that it can be used against them.

[mayank]

There is absolutely no evidence that this fork will gain traction, because it contributes nothing new technically, so it's unlikely we'll reach the point you mention.

[chis]

I'm not an expert, but it seems within the realm of possibility. Despite what hackernews thinks, the forkers have a somewhat reasonable argument, in that Vagg did violate the Code of Conduct (because it is extreme), and the committee voted to ignore it (because he's a valuable contributor). Morality aside, it calls the system into question if someone can violate established rules and get away with it because the judges disagree with the rules.

Also, several members of their ruling committee left to make the fork. So it's not just a bunch of randoms, and they might be able to make some meaningful progress on their own.

[kbenson]

> the forkers have a somewhat reasonable argument, in that Vagg did violate the Code of Conduct

Vagg seems to have a somewhat reasonable argument as well, in that he cannot correct behavior that has not been noted as problematic by himself or others.

If that's true, even though committee members ended up leaving for the fork, I could see their behavior as extreme enough to drive away people who try to contribute to the fork.

Edit: I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. Either case seems possible to me given the dearth of objective information. That I'm collecting upvotes while you are getting downvotes is odd, and IMO unwarranted.

[GenericsMotors]

This is definitely a good experiment to see if a project that is so centered around its CoC will prosper or wither on the vine.

My bet is on cold hard code, but who knows? Time will tell.

[fleitz]

The political question is whether they can attract via their politics the people who make the cold hard code.

Code hard code matters far more than politics to nodeJS consumers, but nodeJS producers may be influenced by politics.

You want to be the side that attracts the cold hard coders similarly to the way communists defected to the west during the cold war.

[thehardsphere]

An important thing to note about that analogy is that defections to the West happened because the West was actually better, not merely more attractive on the surface.

[fleitz]

Exactly, capitalists pay in cold hard cash. You can't buy a sports car if the state doesn't even allow them to be made.

[gaius]

Also, several members of their ruling committee left to make the fork. So it's not just a bunch of randoms, and they might be able to make some meaningful progress on their own.

That's easy enough to answer - look at the commit histories of those four.

[reaperducer]

> it calls the system into question if someone can violate established rules and get away with it because the judges disagree with the rules.

Welcome to adulthood, corporate life, and the real world. It's not fair. It's not designed to be fair. It's not intended to be fair. It's never been fair. You just pull up your big boy pants and deal with it.

[GenericsMotors]

But it has a PR open to bolster its "VALUES.md" file, as well as an issue for the most important subject of a logo.

There is no doubt that this fork is future of server-side JS.

[mattkrea]

I truly hope we are about the high water mark for this kind of entirely irrelevant nonsense. It seems at least in this case the majority of the TSC had the sense to properly deem this ridiculous.

[nogbit]

Yes, and where does one draw the line? Maybe one day the city of Seattle is forced to be renamed because Chief Seattle (of which the city is named after) was actually a slave owner himself.