Read on Twitter
I want to expand on this a bit – there have long been folks doing an incredible amount of work on Node to onboard new contributors, seek consensus, etc. The project survives on their work, which is incredibly emotionally draining.
This is a problem, actually. https://twitter.com/isntitvacant/status/1265432203766321152
This is a problem, actually. https://twitter.com/isntitvacant/status/1265432203766321152
The project should _not_ demand that much out of contributors. As is, it'll consume your every waking moment trying to drive contentious topics to consensus – and you still might end up with a lemon!
The project stays the way it is because it was designed to put friction around change. It is self-reinforcing because it attracts folks who are passionate about the project.
They're willing to do as much work as it takes, even if it's unreasonable.
They're willing to do as much work as it takes, even if it's unreasonable.
Shipping modules required a herculean amount of effort. Folks should be proud of that.
But. It produced something users didn't want & took a _lot_ out of the folks involved.
It's time to ask: is node organized in a way that produces good outcomes for users?
But. It produced something users didn't want & took a _lot_ out of the folks involved.
It's time to ask: is node organized in a way that produces good outcomes for users?
Is radical openness helping, or hurting? Is onboarding new contributors the number one goal of the node project, and if so, how does that affect work on contentious issues? Is the TC the right model?
Examine the assumptions that led to this result!
Examine the assumptions that led to this result!
