questions to the board, following yesterday's board statement
ashleygwilliams opened this issue · comments
i've been thinking a lot about our situation over the last few days and have been interacting with many members of the community, both those who are upset about the TSC vote and others that have concerns that it is being called into question. based on this feedback i have several questions which i intend to bring to the board for discussion that i will also advise would be good for us to comment on publicly.
as a representative of the community, i would like to solicit feedback from ya'll on these questions. the questions as currently drafted are:
Proposed Questions to the Board
- do we support the merge of the CTC and TSC? why do we support/not support it? how do we think it is related to the previous vote and how do we think it will affect the next vote?
- if the vote of the merged CTC/TSC results in the same outcome as the previous vote, what do we think? do we intend to do anything? if so, what and why?
- were there mistakes in the process? what were those mistakes? how do we intend to fix them moving forward? what do we think is the TSC's responsibility regarding this? what do we think our responsibility regarding this? what actions or recommendations do we have? (this is the classic "blameless portmortem"- focus on processes, not people, which is the angle i've been trying to drive in conversations with the community and think is a good strategy for us as a Board as well)
MODERATION: comments that directly suggest new questions or edits to current or suggested questions are considered on topic. comments that do not do this, and/or are argumentative or attempt to address the details of the current situation that are not then constructed into a question for the board will be considered off topic and moderated. if you are concerned whether your comment is on topic, feel free to message me privately at ashley@npmjs.com or @ag_dubs on twitter (DMs open).
EDIT: after i give this issue some time i will create a new issue soliciting feedback on the community as to what they would like the answers to these questions to look like, or be.
EDIT: to make this more clear i have created a heading above the questions and emphasis on the desired feedback. a few community members have been confused about whether this issue is soliciting answers to the questions, which it is not.
addressed
@zkat please remove your unsolicited opinions as per @ashleygwilliams's request:
To note:
It's helpful to understand that the Node.js Board of Directors is one of many groups within the Foundation, and in a sense creates a balance of powers with the Foundation through the TSC, Community Committee(both top-level in the project), the Board, and the executive(employees such as the Executive Director and Community Manager). What that means is that the scope of the Board of Directors in matter of the project work itself(such as the TSC, for instance), is generally one of being asked to advise. Regardless of whether people would argue the legal case in the charter for the Board having the ability to intervene, were it necessary, most foundations want and prefer the committees and community to address and resolve conflict.
If you keep this constraint in mind, providing questions for @ashleygwilliams and @williamkapke will be very constructive.
Are the board going to address the concerns raised that caused yet another fork of the project?
Also, what's the plan regarding the fork? Has there been open dialogue with the fork maintainers with the goal of merging back?
The alleged transgressions were made in the context of the current process and rules. That process has already ruled that his actions do not warrant his removal from the project. If people do not agree with the result and want to change the process then that should happen. But, upon accomplishing change, is it reasonable or ethical to punish someone based on actions that occurred under a different set of rules?
A lot of what has happened is very much "inside baseball". To a layman member of the community, like myself, I'm having trouble understanding what the difference in purpose of the CTC and TSC are, and how a proposed merger of the two would rectify the situation that led to the failed vote.
Could the board please clarify the intent here? And what can the board do going forward to ensure the community is well equipped to understand these types of issues going forward?
We seem to lack a robust conflict management process and this has caught all off guard.
Without knowing the facts, it seems that the Board in its statement has taken a partisan view to the issue that has been raised. Where it should have taken a completely non-partisan view prior to its discussions and investigations, it has compromised itself with respect to any intervention.
- Will the Board consider external neutral arbitration to resolve conflicts where it has become compromised?
- Will the Board respect future democratic decisions or reserve the right to overturn those that it does not support or agree with.
-
What does the board consider to be the harm in allowing a person subject to a process that might result in her ejection from a committee to defend herself in the course of that process?
-
Does the board consider It consistent with human dignity to exclude a person from such a process?
-
If the board considers such secret adjudications to be so consistent, does the board have a plan for replacing the loss of talent (read: brain drain) that will occur as a result?
Will the foundation make clear how its response adheres to the organization's mission?
The questions on my mind, and I apologize if these are somehow misplaced:
- How much was Rod a part of the process and vote on his removal and what are the policies in place for his notice and right to respond or not? From nodejs/CTC#165 (comment) it appears the answer is that he was privy to very little.
- It is my understanding that the CTC does teleconferences regularly, but it's not clear if some of these moderation discussions or any early intervention / de-escalation happened with voice (see question 1). Has there been consideration for intervening early with voice explaining concerns about behavior?
- How are presumptions of motivations and attacks on character handled under the Code of Conduct? (Echoing nodejs/node#15011 (comment) somehow I feel paranoid that by even raising that question I risk becoming a target as a presumed sympathizer of malcontents.)
This is a bit broader than just related to the board's statement, but I think it touches on issues this whole case has brought to light:
Seeing as there is a lot of confusion about the very structure of the Node project, even from individuals somewhat involved and not just users, what will the board do (if anything) to encourage more general transparency of the organization and its procedures?
This extends to working groups: what will the board do to make it more visible how to contribute to the Node organization, especially in ways that do not directly involve code contributions?
Finally, what will the board do to encourage more (and more varied kinds of) contributions from a broader group of people, going forward?
thank you all for your comments thus far! i am commenting to let you know that i will be closing this thread at 4pm EST in preparation for the board meeting at 5pm. if you would like to comment please do so before then.
I would like to respectfully bring to the attention of those on the board the following information. This is not an attempt at trolling. I have genuine concerns about what's happening here, and would like an opportunity to raise those concerns in a respectful manner. I simply want to share what I believe to be timely and important information and then sit back and allow the board to do its job. I thank you all in advance for giving me that opportunity.
Earlier this morning, a CoC complaint was filed against another member of the board who will be weighing in on issues regarding Rod Vagg. My concern is that a very real conflict of interest exists here. The full complaint can be found here:
Multiple CoC violations by Node.js board member Ashley Williams
I have two questions that I respectfully ask be put to the board:
- Do you believe these allegations warrant further discussion?
- If so, do you believe there is a possibility of conflict of interest in regards to the issue(s) regarding Rod Vagg?
Excerpt:
"I wish to formally file a series of Code of Conduct (CoC) violations by Ashley Williams (ag_dubs on twitter) who currently holds a position on the Node.js foundation's Board of Directors underneath the Linux Foundation umbrella. Given the evidence I'll present below, it is clear this individual has violated the CoC on multiple occasions in public forum and appears to harbor racist and sexist views and beliefs making her unfit for participation in the Node.js Foundation's projects, let alone leadership positions. This behavior has been observed since the conception of the Node.js foundation and it is unfortunate it has been allowed to persist for so long."
[Disclaimer: I admire the technical work that @.zkat has done. This is not targeted at them, this targets the public pattern of offensive, CoC-violating behavior by those who champion CoCs the most. I can't stress enough, it is not offence that I personally feel...it's disappointment in node.js leaders that I once looked up to.]
Question:
- In a time of unrest after the events of last week. How will the board handle the pattern of statements made by '
members' such as the following?
-
Do you think that the general sentiment
"males are inferior, fragile, and incompetent babies"by member, even in jest, could have influenced the vitriol and campaign of misinformation againstRod Vagg? -
Is twitter a valid source of CoC infractions? (as it was for
Rod Vagg) Will this be changing? -
Apparent double-standards such as this (and the comment above) shake the community's confidence in CoCs, what steps will the board take to restore this confidence and ensure equal enforcement regardless of race or gender?
[Footnote: @.zkat did make a statement on the reasons behind their tweet.]
Edit: The reaction to the well meaning comments and links by myself and @tkambler.
This is not what npm/node.js leadership should look like.
- were there mistakes in the process? what were those mistakes? how do we intend to fix them moving forward? what do we think is the TSC's responsibility regarding this? what do we think our responsibility regarding this? what actions or recommendations do we have? (this is the classic "blameless portmortem"- focus on processes, not people, which is the angle i've been trying to drive in conversations with the community and think is a good strategy for us as a Board as well)
I think it's worth figuring out how to handle the backlash from communities that aren't involved in the day-to-day work we're all doing across the TSC / CTC / CommComm who only seem to care about it when rallied by anonymous accounts on various websites. It's incredibly derailing.
Since a lot of the moderation work is done privately, the above causes a huge problem for those who are actually trying to make changes, when those not involved with the process come in and demand accountability.
How are we going to provide accountability while also handling the moderation of issues, because the current process seems to make it so that parties can exploit it.
closing as i need to prepare this feedback for the board meeting. thank you for your input!
Details
@ashleygwilliams I know the time has passed, but could you please include the reaction to the well meaning comments and links by myself and @tkambler.  This is not what npm/node.js leadership should look like.Contents from above comment moved here since HTML wasn't allowed -Wm
The precise definition of "misandry" is:"dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e., the male sex)."
I concur with Mr. Niemiec. If there is a professional bone in the board's body - if they have a shred of decency - they will address this. @ashleygwilliams @zkat @jakeNiemiec @refack
- they are on a closed issue that gave warning of closing
- @tkambler follow up is not considered on topic given the MODERATION statement in the original issue filing.
Sometime last month I had to block both @ashleygwilliams and @zkat over social media due to harassment. These people are bullies and should not be allowed to negatively influence the project in which I've spent years of my life helping foster.