Reasons and goals for Ayo?

[kulshekhar]

Is there a document or an authoritative post that outlines the reasons behind Ayo existing and lists the goals of this project?

Edit: I'm editing this post because I can't add a new one below (or on any other issue)

Take a look at the other (currently 2) issues in the repository, we'd love input!

I've gone through those issues but couldn't get a clear picture. It would be hard to provide any meaningful input without knowing the technical goals of the project.

[varjmes]

Is there a document or an authoritative post that outlines the reasons behind Ayo existing and lists the goals of this project?

Not yet. This project was forked yesterday.
Take a look at the other (currently 2) issues in the repository, we'd love input!

[varjmes]

Is there a document or an authoritative post that outlines the reasons behind Ayo existing and lists the goals of this project?

Not yet. This project was forked yesterday.
Take a look at the other (currently 2) issues in the repository, we'd love input!

[varjmes]

Hey @kulshekhar, sorry you can't create any issues right now. No-one apart from org members can, but tomorrow, everyone will be able to post issues again.

I've gone through those issues but couldn't get a clear picture. It would be hard to provide any meaningful input without knowing the technical goals of the project.

Absolutely, I agree. There is no centralisation of information about what is currently happening in Node core, and I'm not the person to write it. But, speaking for myself, I am interested in Ayo because I am personally unhappy with the leadership of Node core, and want to see if someone else can do better.

As the fork has existed for (less than) a day, there really isn't anything to share. I know that's frustrating, but that's where we're at right now.

Right now, what I'm most interested in is thoughts on #2. Obviously, you can't comment right now (sorry, nor can anyone) but tomorrow I'd love to hear any thoughts you have on how Node could be governed differently. Even if Ayo doesn't become a thing, I think it's a valuable discussion to have, because we can suggest these ideas to Node and see what they think.

<3

[varjmes]

Hey @kulshekhar, sorry you can't create any issues right now. No-one apart from org members can, but tomorrow, everyone will be able to post issues again.

I've gone through those issues but couldn't get a clear picture. It would be hard to provide any meaningful input without knowing the technical goals of the project.

Absolutely, I agree. There is no centralisation of information about what is currently happening in Node core, and I'm not the person to write it. But, speaking for myself, I am interested in Ayo because I am personally unhappy with the leadership of Node core, and want to see if someone else can do better.

As the fork has existed for (less than) a day, there really isn't anything to share. I know that's frustrating, but that's where we're at right now.

Right now, what I'm most interested in is thoughts on #2. Obviously, you can't comment right now (sorry, nor can anyone) but tomorrow I'd love to hear any thoughts you have on how Node could be governed differently. Even if Ayo doesn't become a thing, I think it's a valuable discussion to have, because we can suggest these ideas to Node and see what they think.

<3

[zkat]

There is now a PR, #15, with a draft of the values for this project.

[zkat]

There is now a PR, #15, with a draft of the values for this project.

[yuu2lee4]

Bring fiber in core code like fibjs did or merge to it?

[yuu2lee4]

Bring fiber in core code like fibjs did or merge to it?

[Fishrock123]

@yuu2lee4 maybe you could open a separate issue for that?

[Fishrock123]

@yuu2lee4 maybe you could open a separate issue for that?

[mtimofiiv]

Right now, what I'm most interested in is thoughts on #2. Obviously, you can't comment right now (sorry, nor can anyone) but tomorrow I'd love to hear any thoughts you have on how Node could be governed differently. Even if Ayo doesn't become a thing, I think it's a valuable discussion to have, because we can suggest these ideas to Node and see what they think.

Understandable, but I can't really comment without knowing what the problem is exactly. The Node.js project has already had a major fork in io.js and I really liked the results at the time.

It's only natural as things settled down that new problems emerge, but I truthfully do not follow the community close enough to know. I guess that would make me a user of Node.js rather than a contributor, and as such, some of the more esoteric issues with governance or community are things I am not really aware of too much.

But I could get behind io.js back in the day because @mikeal and others did a great job of communicating it all to someone like me, who is not involved in the day-to-day stuff and just wants to write great shit with Node.js.

tl;dr +1 on wanting a mission statement on the fork!

[mtimofiiv]

Right now, what I'm most interested in is thoughts on #2. Obviously, you can't comment right now (sorry, nor can anyone) but tomorrow I'd love to hear any thoughts you have on how Node could be governed differently. Even if Ayo doesn't become a thing, I think it's a valuable discussion to have, because we can suggest these ideas to Node and see what they think.

Understandable, but I can't really comment without knowing what the problem is exactly. The Node.js project has already had a major fork in io.js and I really liked the results at the time.

It's only natural as things settled down that new problems emerge, but I truthfully do not follow the community close enough to know. I guess that would make me a user of Node.js rather than a contributor, and as such, some of the more esoteric issues with governance or community are things I am not really aware of too much.

But I could get behind io.js back in the day because @mikeal and others did a great job of communicating it all to someone like me, who is not involved in the day-to-day stuff and just wants to write great shit with Node.js.

tl;dr +1 on wanting a mission statement on the fork!

[TimothyGu]

@mtimofiiv Would love it if you could review #15, which is a "mission statement" for this project.

[TimothyGu]

@mtimofiiv Would love it if you could review #15, which is a "mission statement" for this project.

[Fishrock123]

But I could get behind io.js back in the day because @mikeal and others did a great job of communicating it all to someone like me, who is not involved in the day-to-day stuff and just wants to write great shit with Node.js.

I'd like to point out briefly that back in the day we (members of io.js) actually had considerable trouble describing what differentiated ourselves from Node. We ended up just going with "Node plus ES6!" but it was really much more than that. 😉

[Fishrock123]

But I could get behind io.js back in the day because @mikeal and others did a great job of communicating it all to someone like me, who is not involved in the day-to-day stuff and just wants to write great shit with Node.js.

I'd like to point out briefly that back in the day we (members of io.js) actually had considerable trouble describing what differentiated ourselves from Node. We ended up just going with "Node plus ES6!" but it was really much more than that. 😉

[mikeal]

I'd like to point out briefly that back in the day we (members of io.js) actually had considerable trouble describing what differentiated ourselves from Node. We ended up just going with "Node plus ES6!" but it was really much more than that.

That's not entirely true. We spent a lot of time thinking about this, or at least I did, and even worked on it in private for months ahead of time. For contributors, the experience was night and day, and we did all that governance and process work ahead of time (we still had to change it constantly to scale though). Once you landed on the README there was language about the governance model. For wider messaging intended for users we focused on points of differentiation with Node.js that were *positive* about us without being overtly negative towards Node.js. We didn't want to say "they haven't done a major release in 2 years and are using a V8 that isn't even being maintained" because going negative is a double-edged sword. We picked messaging along the lines of "Welcome to ES6" because it was a positive way to show we were shipping releases and pulling in a modern V8 with new features. That's what we gave to media and put on the website, but on social media we *constantly* pushed content about the number of contributors we were gaining, asking people to pitch in at various points etc. The social media side was much more about "here's how you can help out and including you is part of what differentiates us." The biggest success in all that was the localization stuff, which was spun up in about 24 hours and attracted over a hundred people to work on 27 languages. Some of those people didn't stick around but all the active localization groups today originated from that initial push. https://medium.com/@mikeal/how-io-js-built-a-146-person-27-language-localization-effort-in-one-day-65e5b1c49a62

…

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Kulshekhar Kabra ***@***.***> wrote: Understandable, but I can't really comment without knowing what the problem is exactly. There is more information in their chat room. They don't want to comment on the problems directly (the values document does list their solution to these problems) because they (or at least the person who responded to me) believe doing that would amount to dissing on another project. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#7 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAACQ_UAQ3WJlrELN5OnxsPiRX407ZKAks5sbuXfgaJpZM4O_rMP> .

[mikeal]

I'd like to point out briefly that back in the day we (members of io.js) actually had considerable trouble describing what differentiated ourselves from Node. We ended up just going with "Node plus ES6!" but it was really much more than that.

That's not entirely true. We spent a lot of time thinking about this, or at least I did, and even worked on it in private for months ahead of time. For contributors, the experience was night and day, and we did all that governance and process work ahead of time (we still had to change it constantly to scale though). Once you landed on the README there was language about the governance model. For wider messaging intended for users we focused on points of differentiation with Node.js that were *positive* about us without being overtly negative towards Node.js. We didn't want to say "they haven't done a major release in 2 years and are using a V8 that isn't even being maintained" because going negative is a double-edged sword. We picked messaging along the lines of "Welcome to ES6" because it was a positive way to show we were shipping releases and pulling in a modern V8 with new features. That's what we gave to media and put on the website, but on social media we *constantly* pushed content about the number of contributors we were gaining, asking people to pitch in at various points etc. The social media side was much more about "here's how you can help out and including you is part of what differentiates us." The biggest success in all that was the localization stuff, which was spun up in about 24 hours and attracted over a hundred people to work on 27 languages. Some of those people didn't stick around but all the active localization groups today originated from that initial push. https://medium.com/@mikeal/how-io-js-built-a-146-person-27-language-localization-effort-in-one-day-65e5b1c49a62

…

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Kulshekhar Kabra ***@***.***> wrote: Understandable, but I can't really comment without knowing what the problem is exactly. There is more information in their chat room. They don't want to comment on the problems directly (the values document does list their solution to these problems) because they (or at least the person who responded to me) believe doing that would amount to dissing on another project. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#7 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAACQ_UAQ3WJlrELN5OnxsPiRX407ZKAks5sbuXfgaJpZM4O_rMP> .

[varjmes]

I think we've answered it well, in the form of our values document.

[varjmes]

I think we've answered it well, in the form of our values document.