Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

social crap for the idle, concur 100% On 10/12/13 21:47, Mark Hahn wrote: > GH is suppose to have a new feature soon that should let us kill the mailing list  You aren't ref

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

On Dec 10, 2013, at 2:21PM, Mark Hahn wrote: > I hope anything we switch to also supports email. That's a given, GitHub issues support email so I assume this new thing will too. -- -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Post

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

> but email beats “forums” I only use email for this forum. I've never gone to google groups website since I signed up. I hope anything we switch to also supports email. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:47PM, Mark Hahn wrote: > > I and many

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:47PM, Mark Hahn wrote: > I and many others refuse to join google+ I'm with you on that :) GH === GitHub :) -- -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message bec

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > GH is suppose to have a new feature soon that should let us kill the > mailing list while maintaining a forum for the positive (and without doubt > some of the negative) uses of the mailing list. I've got no love for Google > Groups. Hah in

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:47 PM, Mark Hahn wrote: > > GH is suppose to have a new feature soon that should let us kill the > > mailing list > > You aren't referring to google hangouts are you? I and many others refuse to > join google+ or facebook. I'm not going to deal with all that social crap

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

On Tuesday, December 10, 2013, Mark Hahn wrote: > > GH is suppose to have a new feature soon that should let us kill the > mailing list > > You aren't referring to google hangouts are you? I and many others refuse > to join google+ or facebook. I'm not going to deal with all that social > crap.

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

> GH is suppose to have a new feature soon that should let us kill the mailing list You aren't referring to google hangouts are you? I and many others refuse to join google+ or facebook. I'm not going to deal with all that social crap. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote: >

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

GH is suppose to have a new feature soon that should let us kill the mailing list while maintaining a forum for the positive (and without doubt some of the negative) uses of the mailing list. I've got no love for Google Groups. On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:48AM, Rick Waldron wrote: > FWIW, I also pr

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

On Monday, December 9, 2013, Forrest L Norvell wrote: > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Rick Waldron > > > wrote: > >> On Monday, December 9, 2013, Isaac Schlueter wrote: >> >>> > Meanwhile, also looking as an outsider, I *don't* see the consensus >>> > forming around either "Joyent's control i

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Rick Waldron wrote: > On Monday, December 9, 2013, Isaac Schlueter wrote: > >> > Meanwhile, also looking as an outsider, I *don't* see the consensus >> > forming around either "Joyent's control is fine" or "a non-profit would >> > be better". The views on this fro

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

> The problem is that this mailing list is used by roughly 1% or less of the Node community, and only a few "major > contributors" have even bothered to weigh in on this thread. > > The vast majority of users clearly don't care one way or another. The majority of current active contributors don

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

On 12/09/2013 11:25 AM, Isaac Schlueter wrote: > Meanwhile, also looking as an outsider, I *don't* see the consensus > forming around either "Joyent's control is fine" or "a non-profit would > be better". The views on this from main contributors seem to be all > over the map. The problem is tha

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

On Monday, December 9, 2013, Isaac Schlueter wrote: > > Meanwhile, also looking as an outsider, I *don't* see the consensus > > forming around either "Joyent's control is fine" or "a non-profit would > > be better". The views on this from main contributors seem to be all > > over the map. > > The

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

Do you want to share an opinion about that "blog post" issue? 09.12.2013, 22:35, "Fedor Indutny" : > +1 for "status quo". In my opinion, there're not so many problems with > current node's home as advertised in this thread. > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Isaac Schlueter wrote: > >>>  Meanw

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

I already did. And I don't think that it was an accident and I'm quite sure that Ben has his own reasons to leave even before that "issue". On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Alex Kocharin wrote: > > Do you want to share an opinion about that "blog post" issue? > > 09.12.2013, 22:35, "Fedor Indutn

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

+1 for "status quo". In my opinion, there're not so many problems with current node's home as advertised in this thread. On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Isaac Schlueter wrote: >> Meanwhile, also looking as an outsider, I *don't* see the consensus >> forming around either "Joyent's control is fin

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

> Meanwhile, also looking as an outsider, I *don't* see the consensus > forming around either "Joyent's control is fine" or "a non-profit would > be better". The views on this from main contributors seem to be all > over the map. The problem is that this mailing list is used by roughly 1% or less

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

// ravi wrote at 12:24 (EST) on Sunday: > rather than speak in the abstract, why not consider the actual > proposals made that I was referring to Part of my point in this thread has been that Node.js community need not narrow its options for an organizational home down to just one or two choices i

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

On Dec 8, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > > In all the time i have been at the ASF i have not seen a company having > direct influence. All committers are individuals first. In some cases some > individuals are paid by an company. But this is usually no harm because every > com

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

On 8 Dec 2013, at 18:24, // ravi wrote: On Dec 7, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: rather than speak in the abstract, why not consider the actual proposals made that I was referring to: transfer of NodeJS to Apache or Eclipse. Are either of these public charities? Did I misread the A

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

On Dec 7, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > // ravi wrote at 14:02 (EST) on Friday: >>> What happens once we move from being sponsored by one >>> profit-motivated organisation to a foundation sponsored by many >>> profit-motivated organisations? > > This is probably a false dichotomy, s

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

Sorry to jump into this thread late -- a supporter of Conservancy noted to me that it might be valuable for me to comment on this thread. Feel free to ignore this email if it's not helpful. I read through the posts on this thread, and it seems to me that Node.js is facing a standard decision that

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

Sorry to jump into this thread late -- a supporter of Conservancy noted to me that it might be valuable for me to comment on this thread. Feel free to ignore this email if it's not helpful. I read through the posts on this thread, and it seems to me that Node.js is facing a standard decision that

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

+1 to nodejs foudation and here in Brazil is very easy open a Foudation. we have http://www.python.org.br and http://www.plone.org.br And all foundations have collaboration between them. I loved open http://www.nodejs.org.br :-) regards J

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

Hi Everyone, Even if I do not feel the urge to take a stand in this political flame (strange for an Italian guy ;)), I would like to add that the Eclipse Foundation is made by very nice people that understand developers and commercial OSS products. IMHO whatever core developers decides is good fo

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

On Dec 4, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Issac Roth wrote: > > This is an example of Joyent acting unilaterally. I'm not sure if Isaac > actually took away his committer bit, but he and Joyent seem to want Ben out > of the codebase. <…> > The announcement of Joyent becoming explicitly commercial about Node

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

 After reading this blog:http://web.archive.org/web/20131201044200/http://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun I tend to agree with you guys. I have a high respect for all core maintainers, they are doing a great work, and I can't even imagine where node.js would've been now. But seeing WHAT

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

Aisle 3, behind the WebOS devices. On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Luke Arduini wrote: > I would like to buy one node core developer team for cheap, please. Where can > I purchase these programmers? > > On Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Stephen Belanger wrote: > > > > The only scenario I

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

I would like to buy one node core developer team for cheap, please. Where can I purchase these programmers? On Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Stephen Belanger wrote: > > > The only scenario I can think of being at all possible is that somehow > Joyent manages to screw up and go bankrupt, then someone

[nodejs] node.js needs a new home

Paraphrasing your response: Fear: what happens if Joyent is acquired and the new evil owner of Node takes the project in a terrible direction? Uncertainty: companies might not adopt Node if it continues under the stewardship of a for-profit company. Where does that leave the future of the users?

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

Joyents actions last week weakened the perception of nodejs. This makes it harder to continue the growth we had so far. Right when we are "crossing the chasm" and showing its a viable piece of technology for more traditional companies. This makes our work harder and made everyone's contributions le

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Forrest L Norvell wrote: > Not seconded. > > There's an argument to made to remove single stewardship from Node *at all* > and to move it under a truly free license (such as GPLv2), but I think that > ship has sailed. I agree on both counts. My 2 cents: ASF is a

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

Losing Ben, even if it ends up being just for a short time, is a huge loss to this project [*], and the StrongLoop writeup on it makes an extremely strong point: this was an opportunity for communication and education, not name calling to try and save face to a lynch mob. I agree with the premise

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

Not seconded. There's an argument to made to remove single stewardship from Node *at all* and to move it under a truly free license (such as GPLv2), but I think that ship has sailed. Joyent has been a responsible steward of Node's trademarks and otherwise has left it alone to develop as it will. I

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

Can't say I follow your logic. The article you cite discusses a disagreement on the value of a patch between the Node owners/massive contributors and a significant contributor. Based on this Node should move to a new owner? Regardless of which side of the disagreement one falls on, I'm not seein

Re: [nodejs] node.js needs a new home

Disagree. Joyent holds it down, and ASF is where software projects go to collect dust. --Josh On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Darren DeRidder wrote: > Be it proposed that the community of Node.JS users and supporters will be > better served by moving the Node.JS project and its affiliated trad

[nodejs] node.js needs a new home

Be it proposed that the community of Node.JS users and supporters will be better served by moving the Node.JS project and its affiliated trade marks and copyrights under the control of the Apache Software Foundation. Refer to http://gigaom.com/2013/12/02/slap-fight-in-node-js-land/ and to the m