{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/iojs/io.js/issues/1336","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/iojs/io.js/issues/1336/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/iojs/io.js/issues/1336/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/iojs/io.js/issues/1336/events","html_url":"https://github.com/iojs/io.js/issues/1336","id":66102046,"number":1336,"title":"io.js community thoughts on reconciliation","user":{"login":"rvagg","id":495647,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/495647?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/rvagg","html_url":"https://github.com/rvagg","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rvagg/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rvagg/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rvagg/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rvagg/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rvagg/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rvagg/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rvagg/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rvagg/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rvagg/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/iojs/io.js/labels/discuss","name":"discuss","color":"02d7e1"},{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/iojs/io.js/labels/meta","name":"meta","color":"fef2c0"}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":132,"created_at":"2015-04-03T08:00:08Z","updated_at":"2015-04-04T13:09:26Z","closed_at":null,"body":"I've heard a bit of disquiet about the idea of reconciling back with joyent/node and joining in on the Node Foundation and I thought it appropriate to provide a specific place to discuss these concerns, separate from the fine details of _how_ any such reconciliation might proceed.\r\n\r\nThe current reconciliation process is still mostly being driven from the top and techno-political necessity has meant that a lot of discussions have been had in private. Thankfully @mikeal has forced it in to the open with his GitHub threads on reconciliation that have flushed out discussion both here and in the JNAB process and even the large corporates involved in the Foundation discussions are now openly engaging. So we can now be much more transparent about the process.\r\n\r\nMy intention here is to ensure that @iojs/collaborators and everyone that considers themselves part of this new _community_ feels that they have a voice and that the proverbial tail isn't wagging the dog. This is _your_ project.\r\n\r\nSome of the **pros** for reconciliation that I've heard (please add to these if I miss anything). I'm attempting to characterise the arguments here, I don't necessarily agree with these.\r\n\r\n - io.js is has very tiny reach compared to joyent/node with many people in the wider \"community\" (beyond the twitterati and active GitHubbers) not even being aware of it. Moving back in to the fold to take advantage of the momentum that joyent/node has and the name recognition that comes with \"Node.js\" makes the effort that goes on here more worthwhile.\r\n - The proposed foundation comes with corporate backing which would be helpful for this project because it gives access to T&E for contributors to gather and do stuff face-to-face, it would give a budget for things (build resources? SSL certificates? other?). I'm actually not sure what the real benefits here and would prefer @mikeal to fill this one out since he's the one making this argument.\r\n - Reconciliation would re-combine the efforts of all contributors, across both projects, into a unified coalition that would work on a single _thing_.\r\n - Reduce the risk of individuals or companies owning important parts of this project - e.g. the domain name and certs. There's also more legal pressure against people going crazy with the liberal access we're handing out (want to sabotage io.js with your commit access? there's probably not any legal avenues we can take at the moment because nobody really owns it).\r\n - Resolve the hassles with the `iojs` binary name, e.g. Windows problems & side-by-side install problems and the general complaint about us clobbering `node` on install.\r\n\r\nSome **cons**, perhaps:\r\n\r\n - io.js is going to have to make compromises in its organisational and governance structures to fit in with something more formal, what we have here is great for an informal grouping of interested developers but not so suitable if we're talking about a foundation.\r\n - io.js is going to have to have some tough conversations with those that are driving joyent/node to where it is today, those who have made the same decisions that lead to a fork in the first place. This is going to cause trauma regardless of governance structure (\"just vote em out!\" isn't going to fly here).\r\n - io.js is going to have to interact with very large corporate muscle and we're going to have to learn how to deal with that in a constructive way, perhaps this doesn't properly belong in the *cons* pile but it's out there anyway. \r\n - \"io.js\" as a brand may be diminished and I know a lot of people have become attached to it. Even if it's kept as a sub-branding of some kind it'll be subsumed back in to \"Node.js\" (this is a *pro* for some of course).\r\n\r\nOther open questions:\r\n\r\n - Does it really matter that io.js isn't as popular as joyent/node at this stage? What's the reasoning that's making this such a compelling argument? Same goes for the \"Node.js\" name.\r\n - Does having corporate backing and a big budget diminish our ability to acquire donated resources to the project because we can now pay for it? Or does this even matter?\r\n - Does having staff paid by a Foundation diminish the community at all? Perhaps creating an additional level of privilege will impact on the openness we've created.\r\n - Part of what we've built here comes from a shared sense of **ownership** and that's one of the core reasons that open OSS governance works because people will fight for something that they have a real stake in. If it all gets owned by a Foundation, who owns it and will that impact on the way we individually feel about contributing and being involved? There's already plenty of evidence in this repo of that sense of ownership driving a passion that's leading to very productive discussions and contributions, will that be impacted at all with a Foundation?\r\n - Joyent have squandered much of the trust and respect they once had and they continue to frustrate even in their involvement in the AB and Foundation discussions. Does their re-involvement in _this_ community have an impact or do we imagine they will once again become the constructive force they used to be or perhaps they will be neutralised in a way that everyone's happy?\r\n - Is it necessary to discuss reconciliation and Foundation at the same time? io.js could form its own Foundation, perhaps without the significant corporate backing that joyent/node can attract at the moment but maybe that doesn't matter. Early on in the node-forward process there was some brief talk with the [Software Freedom Conservancy](https://sfconservancy.org/), I don't really know anything about them but perhaps there's another model, like that, that would solve what makes a Foundation compelling for people?"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/iojs/io.js/issues/comments/89574949","html_url":"https://github.com/iojs/io.js/issues/1336#issuecomment-89574949","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/iojs/io.js/issues/1336","id":89574949,"user":{"login":"therophyte","id":5376876,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5376876?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/therophyte","html_url":"https://github.com/therophyte","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/therophyte/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/therophyte/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/therophyte/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/therophyte/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/therophyte/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/therophyte/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/therophyte/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/therophyte/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/therophyte/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-04-04T13:09:26Z","updated_at":"2015-04-04T13:09:26Z","body":"There's one overridingly important issue here that's getting lost in the  \"not seeing the forest for the trees\" arguments and that's the need for the concept of node to flourish. \r\n\r\nWhether it's called node.js or io.js is nigh on irrelevant. \r\n\r\nAs @jasisk and others have said, node.js fits the LTS part of a common pattern of evolution and io.js the bleeding edge part, so there's nothing new here and arguments are to be expected as well, but throwing the toys out of the cot is counter-productive. \r\n\r\nThe LTS part of node, of any  product, needs money, read corporate investment. It's a no brainer, as @zxcvnull points out, that corporates want a ROI but that's just a cost of achieving longevity. It's unfortunately also the recipe for becoming moribund, the very definition of bureaucracy. \r\n\r\nCounterbalancing this slow death are the bleeding edge developers, flying off in usually unimaginable directions and keeping node not just alive, but viable within its constantly evolving ecosysyem.\r\n\r\nWhile there have always been, and probably always will be, developers who will work on the bleeding edge just for the unmitigated joy of it, money has its uses, for more RAM, faster CPU's, coffee, rent, food, things like that. \r\n\r\nAnd that's where the foundation comes into the picture. It's the fulcrum that balances these two opposing camps. The foundation's members' abilities in maintaining this balance determine the long term viability of node."}}