This is Issac (the bald one) from StrongLoop. We're active sponsors of the Node.js project in core, modules, meetups, evangelism, etc, but not in any kind of leadership way like Joyent.
We think Node.js should move to a foundation. (Eclipse or Mozilla, not Apache.) We think it hurts Node.js adoption for it to be perceived to be owned by Joyent. Our business is an mBaaS based on Node.js and we want Node.js to be widely adopted for our own success. Some developers don't want to contribute to something they feel is owned by a corporation. Some companies won't approve adoption of Node because they're concerned that its future is uncertain since it's owned by a small private company. They ask, "what if Joyent is acquired by our competitor? Or by insert-big-evil-co-here." We can explain how the community can fork in that case, but you have to be sophisticated about open source to understand that logic chain and most people don't. Uncertainty creates concern, which gives people a reason to not use Node. Broader adoption of Node leads to its continued support and progress and I think most of us want that. The current situation doesn't make the future certain and it doesn't make governance transparent (because Joyent can make decisions unilaterally.) Newcomers don't realize that Joyent has been good so far and how can they trust that they'll be good in the future. Finally, the alignment of interests isn't as pure as it could be. When you read posts or hear speakers, try to map who has a commercial relationship with Joyent. Many of the most outspoken community members do. That may or may not taint their opinions - it’s not transparent. All that said, there is too much commercial interest for Joyent in owning Node.js (it is after all an asset with enterprise value), and I suspect the team feels they have earned the right to own it due to their stewardship to this point. For these reasons alone I doubt they'll let it go. We can do stuff to change the harmful perception without asking Joyent to do something their investors and history won't let them do: - We can distance Node.js a little from Joyent, and hopefully they will even help with this. A neutral Node.js is one that more people can get behind without question. - Posters can disclose their commercial relationships with Joyent if any. - We can be more explicit about the difference between node.js core, where Joyent has special jurisdiction, and community where they're like the rest of us. What do you think? -- -- 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 nodejs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 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 nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
