[orless]

What I'm completely missing in this discussion of Code of Conduct violation is a specific list of which actions violated which clauses in this Code of Conduct.

I see a list of complaints, but for an outsider it is really hard to follow why these actions are considered to be CoC violations.

Take this, for instance:

"In [moderation repository discussion], Rod’s first action was to apologize to a contributor who had been repeatedly moderated. Rod did not discuss the issue with other members of the CTC/TSC first. The result undermined the moderation process as it was occurring. It also undercut the authority as moderators of other CTC/TSC members."

Do you know how this reads? A case is being made against a "toxic" person who "repeatedly breaks CoC" and the first complaint against him is that he apologized to a contributor? Really? I just don't get this.

[BinaryIdiot]

This was how I viewed it as well. Especially if what Rod said about not being notified about ANY of these items is true.

This just appears someone compiled a list of things Rod screwed up, most of which he seemed to own and tried to fix. Maybe my impression is wrong but it just comes off as awful.

I tried getting the entire story. I tried reading through the complaints, hunting down tweets and even reading Rod's side. But I eventually had to give it; it was going to take me hours to gain a small amount of context (some appears to be private / offline so I don't see a way to gain all of the necessary context to judge this situation).

I get the feeling people are going to take their biases, one way or another, and run with what their side is because I don't see a quick way of wading through all of this.

[mdekkers]

it just comes off as awful

This is why have stopped contributing to OSS in a public fashion over 20 years ago. Nasty backstabbing politics (and in my case, there was actually a business purpose behind it, unlike most of this drama) People online are awful and the veil of anonymity and distance brings out the worst in people.

Fuck that.

[wmmm]

HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN THE ACCUSATIONS? HERE IT IS:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212745/https://github.co...

1. "Rod’s first action was to apologize to a contributor who had been repeatedly moderated"

2. "Rod did not moderate himself when asked by another foundation director"

3. "Rod tweeted in support of an inflammatory anti-Code-of-Conduct article"

NOW ASK YOURSELF: Why was those points removed? Supposedly to save Rod from harassment. But right now EVERYONE speculates what serious bad behavior it must have been that leaving it in the public could lead to harassment! NO ONE would EVER imagine that HE'S #1 BAD BEHAVIOR WAS APOLOGIZING!!!

The second one was not removing his comment THAT DIDN'T INCLUDE ANYTHING RUDE, OFFENSIVE or in ANY WAY unacceptable, while NO EVIDENCE was ever provided that would demonstrate that he was even asked to do so!

The third point is DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. In fact Rod tweeted NO MORE NO LESS: "If you've never considered the potential downsides of codes of conduct, here's a good place to start" and posted a link to The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech ARTICLE by A KNOWN PSYCHOLOGIST Geoffrey Miller - "an American evolutionary psychologist, serving as an associate professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico and known for his expertise in sexual selection in human evolution" (Wikipedia) THAT WAS DESCRIBED AS: "tweeted in support of an inflammatory anti-Code-of-Conduct article"

NOW ASK YOURSELF: was the actual accusations, the 3 worst things that Rod ever did, removed to save Rod from harassment? Or to make us all speculate of what crimes it must have been that he could be harassed if anyone knew what he did? FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

.

REFERENCES:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15176562

https://medium.com/@rvagg/the-truth-about-rod-vagg-f063f6a53...

https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841

http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-spe...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Miller_(psychologist)

.

SEE ALSO:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15176562

[wmmm]

!!! UPDATE !!!

The Node's Code of Conduct was originally copied from:

https://www.contributor-covenant.org/

which has FEMINIST colors and explicitly link to extreme FEMINIST website: the so called Geek Feminism wiki, that fights to introduce 50% women (of course feminists) to every software project, NOT BASED ON SKILLS which is explicitly stated on the website.

If you read more closely you will not only see obvious links to FEMINISM but also to MARXISM. At this point it should be no surprise that they are fighting with "white men" that they hate using their own made-up language like cisheteronormative bias etc.

ONE OF THE FEMINISTS FROM NODE WERE ACCUSED OF MUCH WORST VIOLATIONS THAN ROD VAGG AND THEY ARE ALREADY MAKING EXCUSES:

>>> Multiple CoC violations by Node.js board member Ashley Williams https://www.reddit.com/r/node/comments/6whs2e/multiple_coc_v...

WARNING: there is RASIST and SEXIST language quoted in the tweets written by Ashley Williams, promoting GENOCIDE and forced CASTRATION but apparently that is nothing compared to an innocent tweet by Rod Vagg.

Now DON'T BE SURPRISED!

FEMINISM is like MARXISM (and in fact there are very strong links between the two).

This is CLASS CONFLICT. Like MARXISTS don't want EQUAL RIGHTS for the CAPITALIST - they just want to TAKE OVER what they achieved. THE SAME IS HERE.

So PEOPLE!!! Don't be surprised if you let those FEMINIST "CODE OF CONDUCTS" into your projects!!!

[sulam]

This as least is something I can understand (and it seems he understands it too, as he apologized for it). When you're not involved in a discussion, are in a leadership position, and apologize to someone for the outcome of the discussion, you are undercutting the authority of the people involved in that discussion, the decision they made, and the entire organizational process that produced the decision.

[orless]

Yes I get it that he may have stepped over other moderators, I can understand this. But how is that in violation with Code of Conduct, exactly? Just don't say it is "Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting".

https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

[foota]

I would go with:

- "Focusing on what is best for the community"

- "Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting" (yes you said not to but it does apply)

[fatbird]

It's not a violation of the CoC, it undermines the CoC, which is generally inappropriate. It's basically broadcasting "Don't take the CoC seriously".

[orless]

For this apology to undermine CoC, the moderated contributor (to whom the apology was made) must have violated CoC with his contribution (or whatever it was). Nobody links to that discussion anymore (probably better so).

Somehow it is quite hard to make an informed opinion in this case.

[brudgers]

The code of conduct is here: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

[orless]

I'm missing "specific list of which actions violated which clauses in this Code of Conduct", not the Code of Conduct itself.

[bjt2n3904]

Secret, anonymous accusations? Check.

Instructions to not discuss this with anyone? Check.

Little to no evidence? Check.

No opportunity to provide a response? Check.

Witch hunt. But don't worry, if he doesn't float, we'll pardon him posthumously.