[Your Medium Article](https://medium.com/@rvagg/the-truth-about-rod-vagg-f063f6a53557)
> …I am disappointed that a majority of the Board would agree to conduct themselves in such an unprofessional and immature manner is an understatement.
This sounds naive to me. I remember iojs and who the tension was resolved by forming the current structure.
[nodejs/community-committee/issues/111](https://github.com/nodejs/community-committee/issues/111)
> How can we have CoC accountability when that apparently doesn’t even extend to the core contributors of a project? There are MULTIPLE conduct violations. What does one have to do to actually have any repercussions?
Is about enforcing bureaucratic process.
> it’s important for Node.js to have a […] well-defined enforcement process, and for any internal leadership organizations to follow that as closely as possible. It should be as mechanical as possible.
Here is proof. It’s about process.
You in your position and activity are subject to the structure and process. If you don’t like a certain structure and process, you should — as many others do — go somewhere and create the structure and process you like.
[Your Medium Article](https://medium.com/@rvagg/the-truth-about-rod-vagg-f063f6a53557)
> That said, I do not believe that it is in the long-term interests of Node.js or its Foundation to pander to angry mobs, as they represent a small fraction of our stakeholders and their demands are rarely rational.
This statement is void of the underlying mechanics of what is happening and very naive. There is a difference between imaginary stakeholders and real stakeholders. I assume you believe in the concept of “representation”. I did not vote nor do I know any representative personally. I think this goes for most nodejs users in the world.
> It saddens me that there is no recognition of the fact that appeasing angry and unverified demands by activists only leads to greater demands and less logical discussion of these issues.
You get very upset that the structures and process which you decided to live under in the past is not working out the way you wanted and now you blame it on some people who have little to do with it protecting the people directly in charge of either following through on certain actions or not. So you think those people are incapable of judging?
> If we accept this precedent then we place the future health of this project in jeopardy, as we will have demonstrated that we allow outsiders to adjust our course to suit personal or private agendas, as long as they can concoct a story to create outrage and dispense mob justice without reproach.
This is ridiculous. The nodejs project comes with a certain structure and process. What is happening right now is that structure is working. You might not like the result, but other people choose to live and work in different structures with different processes. You might have assessed the workings and potential consequences of certain structures wrongly in the past, but you now get a chance to reassess.
> While difficult, I believe that it is important for the technical team to continue to assert its independence, to the board and to other outside influences. We are not children who need adult supervision; treating us as such undermines so much of what we have built over these last few years and erodes the feelings of ownership of the project that we have instilled in our team of collaborators.
You are a child with adult supervision if the structure and process you are subject of define it so and grant certain powers to the supervisors. If you do not want to be subject of such supervision do not submit yourself to those structures. It’s really easy in the open source world to choose a different path. It is a good thing to erode a feeling of ownership where there is no ownership. If you think there should be such a thing, you might consider different social structures and processes in the future that reflect more what you feel should be the case.
> If the best reason you can find force my resignation is the above list of infractions, given the weight of content you could dredge through, then you’re either not trying very hard or I should be pretty proud of myself for keeping a more level head than I had imagined.
Be proud or not — it’s totally beside the point and utterly irrelevant.
— —
> The message that the Board has chosen to send today can be rightly interpreted as this: if the mob comes calling, if the narrative of evil is strong enough, regardless of the objective facts, the Foundation does not have your back. As developers and leaders, the Foundation is signalling that they will not stand up for us when things get tough.
These sound to me like word of somebody who needs supervision. Somebody to complain about parents who made a unpopular decision. The social structure and process you are in operate on facts or not facts that are interpreted by a social body. The members of that body change over time and are subject to political and other forces. Over a long enough period of time certain phenomena can be observed or not.
To me the above quote sounds like somebody using Windows that it’s not working like Mac OSX or Linux. Of course it’s not. If you want something to work like something, then get that something and not something else and expect it to work like something :-)
Do you even know what you want?
> …Combine this with a difficult and thankless job, where the result of exercising your duties could be career-killing
What career are you talking about?
Who entitled you to a career? Which career? And why you and not someone else? A career is ALWAYS in context of a certain social structure that comes with some kind of social bodies that act as “parents”. If you are not happy with that career choose a different one. If you are not happy with “parents” at all, then think about entirely different structures.
Complaining about the bad sides of certain social structures and processes, but taking all the goodies in time when things are working well is very childish behavior if you can follow this analogy.
> …but get taken down because the support structures either abandon them or turn against them
…what an unfair world…
> This is a great challenge for modern open source and I’m so sad that I am being forced to be involved in the setting of our current trajectory. **I hope, as open source practitioners, we can find space in the future to have the necessary dialog to find a way out of the hole being dug.**
Don’t be sad. Be happy instead :-) It’s a unique opportunity to reassess some fundamental assumptions. Not many people get this chance.
The last bold sentence is what I am reacting to with this post of mine.
