node. JS is forked out of a project-ayo.js, is it swollen?

(Note: Ayo.js Fork from node. js.) Currently, a large number of documents still point to the node. JS Library. ）

Ayo.js is a JavaScript runtime built on Chrome's V8 JavaScript engine. Ayo.js uses an event-driven, non-blocking I/O model to make it lightweight and efficient. The ecosystem of the Ayo.js package, NPM, is the world's largest ecosystem of open source repositories.

Contributions, policies, and releases are managed under an open governance model.

The project is bound by the code of conduct.

Https://github.com/ayojs/ayo

Ayo (pronounced "eye-oh" or IO) is a branch of the current popular JavaScript Runtime, node. js. It was created because of a "code of conduct" issue that occurred inside the node. JS Project.

A committee of the node. JS Project (TSC) should allow a developer of a node. JS project to continue to vote on the project, with a vote of 60% in favor. The reason for voting is that the developer has some behavior that violates the code of conduct. In fact, this vote means that they attach great importance to this "code of conduct".

Unfortunately, as Twitter user Maybekatz points out, if committee members voted in favour of allowing developers to continue working on the project, the code of conduct does not appear to be executing.

And now, due to the lack of execution of the code of conduct, not only has the bifurcation of node. js been created, but a member of the node. JS Committee resigned from his position on the TSC (Technical Guidance Committee).

Here's what the developer who chose to resign said:

A recent TSC decision has made me think that the technical Steering Committee is making decisions that are not in the best interests of the node. JS Project. It's not just a matter of a specific individual, but as a project and the responsibility we take, it's a question of the values we choose to show to everyone.

TSC has the ultimate authority over the project, including:

• Technical direction

• Governance and process of the project (including this rule)

• Contribution details

• GitHub Warehouse Hosting

• Code of Conduct

• Maintain a list of additional collaborators

The current decisions undermine our "Code of Conduct", which in my view not only drove away potential contributors, but also undermined the Committee's ability to govern.

It may be a deadly move for the contributors to drive open source projects in the open source world, knowing that most developers are basically using their free time to volunteer for the project. Whether it's a small project or a big project such as node. js, it's hard to attract contributors, so we need to be aware that all contributors are happy.

Open source projects should adopt a "code of conduct" because it allows contributors to feel secure in the process of contributing to the project and can increase their courage when submitting patches. When a contributor has just joined a project, it may be a little "shy" to the project, but the code of conduct can help resolve the situation. Introducing a "contribution" document-explaining how to contribute to the project and where to start it is also a good idea. In fact, anything that makes it easy for the public to contribute to an open source project is a good thing.

August 23, 2017 11:26 Update: Ayo.js on GitHub discusses several issues, such as management architecture and project objectives.

One of the most expensive responses to the issue of merging back to node. JS is as follows:

I just hope that mistakes can be fixed. I don't care what the project is called or who's controlling it, and as long as it serves the community, it's worth the effort.

Translated from: https://sourcecontribute.com/

 Original address: Https://www.oschina.net/news/88016/node-js-has-forked-into-ayo

node. JS is forked out of a project-ayo.js, is it swollen?