Just a few things. When you want to comment in regard to Bryan Cantrill's post on behalf of Joyent it doesn't make you sound more definitive to state your opinion as some sort of overwhelming consensus when it is not. I agreed with Bryan and have nothing to do with Joyent. Many others feel the same.
Saying this "hurts Joyent's credibility" is not a better way of saying "I disagree." Please stop, it makes you sound foolish. Next thing: core doesn't matter. I love core, they do awesome stuff, but core as an influencer of the community overall matters roughly 4x less than it did a year ago. Next year it'll matter less. Being that it matters less why are wasting energy trying to migrate its ownership? The ecosystem is where all the value is, it is not owned by Joyent, it is owned by the contributors. Next thing: if the actual people who committed regularly to core (there's only about 6 of them) felt that Joyent's involvement was a hinderance they'd fork, guaranteed. It's not actually that hard to just fork the project. In fact, it would be easier for the maintainers to fork than to migrate the ownership and trademark to a non-profit. The maintainers are not calling for that, so how about everyone else just stop. This is only an attractive subject to rant about because you can put all of the responsibility for action on other people. If someone wants to come up with a half a million dollars in legal fees to start a non-profit and defend the trademark I'll start to care about what you have to say. It's been a long week, this is an unfortunate and stupid distraction, let's stop. -Mikeal On Dec 3, 2013, at 9:56PM, Darren DeRidder <drderid...@gmail.com> wrote: > To clarify, Brett, in reference to the first article, the "old timers" around > here who followed this issue as it unfolded will probably realize it involves > underlying friction between developers at two different companies coming to > the surface. The response of Bryan C., publicly calling for the firing of a > core node contributor, was alarming to say the least. It hurts Joyent's > credibility when heavily invested users see that their top leadership would > rather publicly shame a valuable contributor over a minor misunderstanding > than deal with it in a productive way. > > As Rick pointed out, a foundation in and of itself may not have helped in > this particular instance, but the idea in general isn't naive, and might be > inevitable. As others have pointed out, there is a reason why software > foundations exist. > > Going forward, the inter-company friction could increase... It should be > pointed out that today Joyent announced their new professional services > support for enterprise Node.JS users, a business model in direct competition > with StrongLoop. Owning copyright and trade marks on the code and brand of > Node.JS gives them an undeniable advantage, and although we haven't seen this > being abused yet, naivety would be to assume it never would be. > > Also, as others said, the perception that Joyent "owns" node is a concern for > some larger potential users of the technology. I'm not affiliated with either > Joyent or StrongLoop; I work for a very large international > telecommunications company. It's a continual battle to get acceptance for new > technology, and efforts to promote node in the enterprise will be hurt if > open hostility is seen coming from it's "corporate stewards", regardless of > the underlying issue. A foundation like Mozilla, Apache or Eclipse addresses > the perception issue and could also help ease concerns about Joyent's > "trigger-happy" leadership. Other considerations for/against a foundation can > be seen in the second link to Ryan's original announcement. > > As for the foundations themselves, I agree that they seem dated and uncool > and that Apache might not be the right choice. To be fair, PhoneGap / Cordova > went with Apache, so it's not *all* gathering dust. > > -- > -- > 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. -- -- 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.
