Open an RFC to discuss decision to revert License and remove Jamie #1639

hannahhoward · Aug 30, 2018

While choosing to close #1635 @TheLarkInn writes:

Ben I'm going to close this issue, in favor or a more structured, RFC style of a proposal for what decisions you are questioning. Thanks! We don't have a template RFC format, or spec template, but hopefully looking to have one once we catchup and dust settles.

It's not clear what specifically such an RFC would look like, and what it's format would take. Since then no issue has been opened.

This issue is simply to register there is dissent among a portion of Lerna users about the decision of the core team to revert Jamie's license change and remove him from the project until an RFC can be opened.

It is precisely the time when people are paying attention when discussion is necessary, when a wider group of perspectives can be heard.

My simple question, given the lack of due discussion for the previously MIT license modification, would the maintainers be open to a new PR with legally more robust language along with input from the community?

I definitely think the previous process was rushed, but the core idea is worth exploring.

shushugah · Aug 30, 2018

My simple question, given the lack of due discussion for the previously MIT license modification, would the maintainers be open to a new PR with legally more robust language along with input from the community?

I definitely think the previous process was rushed, but the core idea is worth exploring.

@catcher-in-the-try I disagree. It is relevant for two reasons:

There is significant dissent about the decision to revert the changes in the Licenses and remove Jamie, and an RFC was suggested as a mechanism for discussion, but does not exist. This is a placeholder to simply register there is unaddressed dissent and a promise of a future conversation.
There seems to be a fear of having a discussion while things are "heated" -- I would argue that this is a good time to have discussion, as it's the time when there is likely to be the widest set of perspectives and the most voices are likely to be heard.

hannahhoward · Aug 30, 2018

@catcher-in-the-try I disagree. It is relevant for two reasons:

There is significant dissent about the decision to revert the changes in the Licenses and remove Jamie, and an RFC was suggested as a mechanism for discussion, but does not exist. This is a placeholder to simply register there is unaddressed dissent and a promise of a future conversation.
There seems to be a fear of having a discussion while things are "heated" -- I would argue that this is a good time to have discussion, as it's the time when there is likely to be the widest set of perspectives and the most voices are likely to be heard.

Calls for "civility" and "cooling down" are invariably intended to cease discussion, not enhance it. Hannah's right - the time to discuss is now.

benwiley4000 · Aug 30, 2018

Calls for "civility" and "cooling down" are invariably intended to cease discussion, not enhance it. Hannah's right - the time to discuss is now.

If you want to restrict who can use lerna, then lerna can no longer be called free; it will be proprietary. Please let everyone know with advance notice so they can make preparations to move away from it if it's going to become proprietary software.

nls0 · Aug 30, 2018

If you want to restrict who can use lerna, then lerna can no longer be called free; it will be proprietary. Please let everyone know with advance notice so they can make preparations to move away from it if it's going to become proprietary software.

I don't think anyone's particularly heated, just excited to talk about this. 🙂

benwiley4000 · Aug 30, 2018

I don't think anyone's particularly heated, just excited to talk about this. 🙂

I see these as two separate issues. If the community and the maintainers want to use a modified MIT license, that is fully within their right. However, Jamie's behavior was plainly abusive and in violation of the CoC.

darthtrevino · Aug 30, 2018

I see these as two separate issues. If the community and the maintainers want to use a modified MIT license, that is fully within their right. However, Jamie's behavior was plainly abusive and in violation of the CoC.

Jamie's removal was a necessity and shouldn't be open for debate. Blocking people from contributing because they disagreed, which eventually lead to him blocking everyone but contributors, attacking companies/individuals, claiming community tools (like Babel) are "his" is overwhelming evidence that he violated the CoC.

@benwiley4000 Calls for civility are perfectly apt after an issue like this. Suggesting that asking people to "be nice" is an attempt at ending discussion is one of the strangest stretches I've ever heard. As someone that called maintainers cowards for reverting the changes and removing Jamie, I can get a strong sense of why you'd argue that point, however.

As for this issue, @TheLarkInn made it pretty clear that they'd like to wait for the dust to settle prior to a formal RFC. That makes sense. Right now Lerna is a target for people only interested in politics, and once the dust settles they will likely have something new to chase, and the people actually interested in the project can contribute to the suggested RFC.

hallister · Aug 30, 2018

Jamie's removal was a necessity and shouldn't be open for debate. Blocking people from contributing because they disagreed, which eventually lead to him blocking everyone but contributors, attacking companies/individuals, claiming community tools (like Babel) are "his" is overwhelming evidence that he violated the CoC.

@benwiley4000 Calls for civility are perfectly apt after an issue like this. Suggesting that asking people to "be nice" is an attempt at ending discussion is one of the strangest stretches I've ever heard. As someone that called maintainers cowards for reverting the changes and removing Jamie, I can get a strong sense of why you'd argue that point, however.

As for this issue, @TheLarkInn made it pretty clear that they'd like to wait for the dust to settle prior to a formal RFC. That makes sense. Right now Lerna is a target for people only interested in politics, and once the dust settles they will likely have something new to chase, and the people actually interested in the project can contribute to the suggested RFC.

"Right now Lerna is a target for people only interested in politics" -- I am a professional coder. I am interested in code. I am also interested in politics, FWIW. Given the original issue was a political one, it seems particularly important that a wide variety of political perspectives are included. To wait until there is a safe space for those "only interested in code" excludes a variety of political views, as the idea that politics and code can and should be separate is itself a political position that many disagree with.

I am not personally prepared to say Jamie's removal is a settled issue because the announcement he is being removed does not include any accounting or transparency on what specific violations the maintainers feel occurred. But I agree it is a separate question, except in as much the maintainers announced it in the same PR where they reverted the license change, suggesting they consider the two issues intertwined.

hannahhoward · Aug 30, 2018

"Right now Lerna is a target for people only interested in politics" -- I am a professional coder. I am interested in code. I am also interested in politics, FWIW. Given the original issue was a political one, it seems particularly important that a wide variety of political perspectives are included. To wait until there is a safe space for those "only interested in code" excludes a variety of political views, as the idea that politics and code can and should be separate is itself a political position that many disagree with.

I am not personally prepared to say Jamie's removal is a settled issue because the announcement he is being removed does not include any accounting or transparency on what specific violations the maintainers feel occurred. But I agree it is a separate question, except in as much the maintainers announced it in the same PR where they reverted the license change, suggesting they consider the two issues intertwined.

@catcher-in-the-try making a fork suggests you are engaging in this discussion in bad faith, and would simply like people who have a different viewpoint to go away.

hannahhoward · Aug 30, 2018

@catcher-in-the-try making a fork suggests you are engaging in this discussion in bad faith, and would simply like people who have a different viewpoint to go away.

@hannahhoward

Given the original issue was a political one, it seems particularly important that a wide variety of political perspectives are included. To wait until there is a safe space for those "only interested in code" excludes a variety of political views, as the idea that politics and code can and should be separate is itself a political position that many disagree with

If the broader open-source community wants to discuss the politics of this, they should do so in a forum that makes sense. The Lerna repo isn't that forum. This repo is intended for end-users and maintainers of the project. As such, decisions about the goals and motivations of the project should be made by the Lerna community.

I am not personally prepared to say Jamie's removal is a settled issue because the announcement he is being removed does not include any accounting or transparency on what specific violations the maintainers feel occurred.

I realize some people feel like open source maintainers need to write books for every decision they make, but I disagree. It was decided by multiple maintainers that he violated the CoC. That's subjective, absolutely, but debating the issue to death isn't suddenly going to give us objectivity.

hallister · Aug 30, 2018

@hannahhoward

Given the original issue was a political one, it seems particularly important that a wide variety of political perspectives are included. To wait until there is a safe space for those "only interested in code" excludes a variety of political views, as the idea that politics and code can and should be separate is itself a political position that many disagree with

If the broader open-source community wants to discuss the politics of this, they should do so in a forum that makes sense. The Lerna repo isn't that forum. This repo is intended for end-users and maintainers of the project. As such, decisions about the goals and motivations of the project should be made by the Lerna community.

I am not personally prepared to say Jamie's removal is a settled issue because the announcement he is being removed does not include any accounting or transparency on what specific violations the maintainers feel occurred.

I realize some people feel like open source maintainers need to write books for every decision they make, but I disagree. It was decided by multiple maintainers that he violated the CoC. That's subjective, absolutely, but debating the issue to death isn't suddenly going to give us objectivity.

The purpose isn't objectivity, it's transparency.

mAAdhaTTah · Aug 30, 2018

The purpose isn't objectivity, it's transparency.

@hallister Justin your implication that commenters have no relation to Lerna is unsubstantiated. I for one am actively involved in the ecosystem surrounding Lerna and have been preparing to add Lerna to a project I maintain, although I am now considering alternative options.

benwiley4000 · Aug 30, 2018

@hallister Justin your implication that commenters have no relation to Lerna is unsubstantiated. I for one am actively involved in the ecosystem surrounding Lerna and have been preparing to add Lerna to a project I maintain, although I am now considering alternative options.

The purpose isn't objectivity, it's transparency.

Let's test if that's the actual goal

Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include the use of sexual language or imagery, derogatory comments or personal attacks, trolling, public or private harassment, insults, or other unprofessional conduct.

(Emphasis added by me)

personal attacks... insults

Per palantir/blueprint#2877

Palantir employees are racist

I could probably stop here. That's enough for removal. Full stop.

trolling

Blocking people on the lerna repository that politely called him out.
Blocking all non-contributors on the repo from posting issues/comments/PR's

Per #1628

Suggesting he may not do a major version bump

This is in addition to his horrible conduct in every issue posted regarding adding his company restrictions to the MIT license. That's pretty transparent. That's pretty objectively trolling, personal attacks and insults. Now the question is, do you really want transparency, or are you looking for a fight?

hallister · Aug 30, 2018

The purpose isn't objectivity, it's transparency.

Let's test if that's the actual goal

Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include the use of sexual language or imagery, derogatory comments or personal attacks, trolling, public or private harassment, insults, or other unprofessional conduct.

(Emphasis added by me)

personal attacks... insults

Per palantir/blueprint#2877

Palantir employees are racist

I could probably stop here. That's enough for removal. Full stop.

trolling

Blocking people on the lerna repository that politely called him out.
Blocking all non-contributors on the repo from posting issues/comments/PR's

Per #1628

Suggesting he may not do a major version bump

This is in addition to his horrible conduct in every issue posted regarding adding his company restrictions to the MIT license. That's pretty transparent. That's pretty objectively trolling, personal attacks and insults. Now the question is, do you really want transparency, or are you looking for a fight?

@benwiley4000

Justin your implication that commenters have no relation to Lerna is unsubstantiated.

I made no such implication. I said, quite explicitly, that Lerna is currently a target for those disinterested in the project and overly interested in the politics. By waiting for the dust to settle, we can ensure that any RFC is targeting the actual community. I'm not suggesting that everyone that supported Jamie is a troll, I'm saying that right now Lerna is going to attract them. Wait a few days and they'll be busy trolling someone else so we can get active interest in the discussion, including those that disagree with reverting the change.

hallister · Aug 30, 2018

@benwiley4000

Justin your implication that commenters have no relation to Lerna is unsubstantiated.

I made no such implication. I said, quite explicitly, that Lerna is currently a target for those disinterested in the project and overly interested in the politics. By waiting for the dust to settle, we can ensure that any RFC is targeting the actual community. I'm not suggesting that everyone that supported Jamie is a troll, I'm saying that right now Lerna is going to attract them. Wait a few days and they'll be busy trolling someone else so we can get active interest in the discussion, including those that disagree with reverting the change.

Re: "cooling off" and "people interested only in politics"...

I'm seeing an extremely ill-informed opinion being bandied about that implies the current state of open source is apolitical. FSF was founded on some radically collectivist ideals. OSI on more radically libertarian ones. "Open source principles" are what they are because people planted the flag and did the work to make them that way. The reason this project is MIT instead of GPL in the first place is because of decades of ideological debate and changes in community expectations.

Planting a different flag and doing a different thing is not more or less political than the status quo. To suggest otherwise is ahistorical nonsense. It's not more political; it's merely more participatory.

I'm simultaneously intrigued by the effort to change the license and skeptical of what its effects might be. Maybe reverting was a good idea! It would have for sure been more interesting to see the experiment run its course, but I understand the fear to the health of the project that makes someone walk it back.

Of course this attracted wider attention. Of course people who were otherwise mostly foreign to lerna were intrigued and came running. You were doing something mad and exciting and extremely political. A big project was finally taking an ethical question and putting it front and center and saying "Yeah, it's time to talk about this."

Post-blowback, you don't wanna be political pioneers anymore. And who does? A) It's hard, and B) that's not how most of us want to spend our OSS time.

If you're overwhelmed, frazzled, can't handle being the center of this ethical discussion you started, and just want to be left alone to code now... You could just say so? I mean that completely earnestly. It's okay to get in over your head and ask to be let back out. At least I think so.

jwietelmann · Aug 30, 2018

Re: "cooling off" and "people interested only in politics"...

I'm seeing an extremely ill-informed opinion being bandied about that implies the current state of open source is apolitical. FSF was founded on some radically collectivist ideals. OSI on more radically libertarian ones. "Open source principles" are what they are because people planted the flag and did the work to make them that way. The reason this project is MIT instead of GPL in the first place is because of decades of ideological debate and changes in community expectations.

Planting a different flag and doing a different thing is not more or less political than the status quo. To suggest otherwise is ahistorical nonsense. It's not more political; it's merely more participatory.

I'm simultaneously intrigued by the effort to change the license and skeptical of what its effects might be. Maybe reverting was a good idea! It would have for sure been more interesting to see the experiment run its course, but I understand the fear to the health of the project that makes someone walk it back.

Of course this attracted wider attention. Of course people who were otherwise mostly foreign to lerna were intrigued and came running. You were doing something mad and exciting and extremely political. A big project was finally taking an ethical question and putting it front and center and saying "Yeah, it's time to talk about this."

Post-blowback, you don't wanna be political pioneers anymore. And who does? A) It's hard, and B) that's not how most of us want to spend our OSS time.

If you're overwhelmed, frazzled, can't handle being the center of this ethical discussion you started, and just want to be left alone to code now... You could just say so? I mean that completely earnestly. It's okay to get in over your head and ask to be let back out. At least I think so.

@hallister transparency for a decision comes from the people who made the decision. Right now what we have is:

Despite his numerous (and appreciated) contributions in the past, it has been very clear for quite some time now that he has decided to cease making constructive contributions to the Lerna codebase as well as actively and willfully disregarding the code of conduct that he himself added to the project.

You and I can quibble indefinitely over whether the things you posted are actually CoC violations. The point is neither of us are maintainers.

hannahhoward · Aug 30, 2018

@hallister transparency for a decision comes from the people who made the decision. Right now what we have is:

Despite his numerous (and appreciated) contributions in the past, it has been very clear for quite some time now that he has decided to cease making constructive contributions to the Lerna codebase as well as actively and willfully disregarding the code of conduct that he himself added to the project.

You and I can quibble indefinitely over whether the things you posted are actually CoC violations. The point is neither of us are maintainers.

@jwietelmann really amazing point.

the fear seems to be if we open ourselves to political discussions how will we get our important professional work done.... but the very idea that open source/FSF is the domain where important money making professional work gets done, not where academic and politically radical weirdos hang out in their spare time, is pretty darn new. And that we're at this point it's the work of fairly intense political advocacy and organizing.

hannahhoward · Aug 30, 2018

@jwietelmann really amazing point.

the fear seems to be if we open ourselves to political discussions how will we get our important professional work done.... but the very idea that open source/FSF is the domain where important money making professional work gets done, not where academic and politically radical weirdos hang out in their spare time, is pretty darn new. And that we're at this point it's the work of fairly intense political advocacy and organizing.

Please have patience with me. I don't have a lot of spoons right now, between dealing with an unprecedented (for me) deluge of Twitter notifications and staving off suicidal ideation.

evocateur · Aug 30, 2018

Please have patience with me. I don't have a lot of spoons right now, between dealing with an unprecedented (for me) deluge of Twitter notifications and staving off suicidal ideation.

FWIW @jwietelmann is right that Lerna is getting much attention, eg see this Vice motherboard news article. I did not know about this project myself till I saw the debate.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8xbynx/major-open-source-project-revokes-access-to-companies-that-work-with-ice

shushugah · Aug 30, 2018

FWIW @jwietelmann is right that Lerna is getting much attention, eg see this Vice motherboard news article. I did not know about this project myself till I saw the debate.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8xbynx/major-open-source-project-revokes-access-to-companies-that-work-with-ice

@hannahhoward

This issue is simply to register there is dissent among a portion of Lerna users about the decision of the core team to revert Jamie's license change and remove him from the project until an RFC can be opened.

Thank you for speaking up and registering your dissent and representing the dissent of like-minded Lerna users.

As an open source project we have every right to provide no reason for his removal.

However, as stewards of transparency, trust, and care for our users and the lerna ecosystem, we will provide clarity.

According to the current Lerna Code of Conduct:

Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include the use of sexual language or imagery, derogatory comments or personal attacks, trolling, public or private harassment, insults, or other unprofessional conduct.

Additionally our rights as Org Members of the project for handling unacceptable behavior which do not align with the current Code of Conduct.

Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct. Project maintainers who do not follow the Code of Conduct may be removed from the project team.

These are the segments of the current lerna Code of Conduct that justify our decisions made to revoke all of James involvement and ownership privileges over this GitHub Organization.

In multiple GitHub issues (if you need me to cite them, I will do so but in additional comments or edits from this response), on Twitter [important to note he claims ownership of lerna in this context making him profesionally represented and in the capacity of a maintainer] acts in a very unprofessional, rude, and harassing manner.

These also have been occurring since July which @evocateur official states in our license change PR #1633 that we made a mistake in this regard to not address earlier violations in a swift and timely manner.

As a core team, going forward, we want to not only protect the interest of the project itself, but also the transparency of the project. And that means we need to adopt a much less vague, less interpretive, and more structured Code of Conduct. For that we have open up #1636 per request (I on twitter officially asked Coraline to create this issue).

On behalf of the core team who is all actively monitoring this issue, I hope it provides the clarity that you are seeking. Thank you for sticking up for a transparent and responsible process.

Note: @hannahhoward once you have your clarifications received (even if you don't explicitly request them), would you confirm your question has been answered? That way I can prevent thread abuse by locking and maintainers can add cited incidents in the issue.

TheLarkInn · Aug 30, 2018

@hannahhoward

This issue is simply to register there is dissent among a portion of Lerna users about the decision of the core team to revert Jamie's license change and remove him from the project until an RFC can be opened.

Thank you for speaking up and registering your dissent and representing the dissent of like-minded Lerna users.

As an open source project we have every right to provide no reason for his removal.

However, as stewards of transparency, trust, and care for our users and the lerna ecosystem, we will provide clarity.

According to the current Lerna Code of Conduct:

Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include the use of sexual language or imagery, derogatory comments or personal attacks, trolling, public or private harassment, insults, or other unprofessional conduct.

Additionally our rights as Org Members of the project for handling unacceptable behavior which do not align with the current Code of Conduct.

Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct. Project maintainers who do not follow the Code of Conduct may be removed from the project team.

These are the segments of the current lerna Code of Conduct that justify our decisions made to revoke all of James involvement and ownership privileges over this GitHub Organization.

In multiple GitHub issues (if you need me to cite them, I will do so but in additional comments or edits from this response), on Twitter [important to note he claims ownership of lerna in this context making him profesionally represented and in the capacity of a maintainer] acts in a very unprofessional, rude, and harassing manner.

These also have been occurring since July which @evocateur official states in our license change PR #1633 that we made a mistake in this regard to not address earlier violations in a swift and timely manner.

As a core team, going forward, we want to not only protect the interest of the project itself, but also the transparency of the project. And that means we need to adopt a much less vague, less interpretive, and more structured Code of Conduct. For that we have open up #1636 per request (I on twitter officially asked Coraline to create this issue).

On behalf of the core team who is all actively monitoring this issue, I hope it provides the clarity that you are seeking. Thank you for sticking up for a transparent and responsible process.

Note: @hannahhoward once you have your clarifications received (even if you don't explicitly request them), would you confirm your question has been answered? That way I can prevent thread abuse by locking and maintainers can add cited incidents in the issue.

Cannot speak for @hannahhoward or others but @TheLarkInn I think where I need additional clarity is:

Why did you decide to revert the license change despite maintainers having originally been involved in approving it?
Why did you choose to link Jamie's dismissal with the license change?
Why did you open a pull request to remove your own employer (Microsoft) from the restricted list?

benwiley4000 · Aug 30, 2018

Cannot speak for @hannahhoward or others but @TheLarkInn I think where I need additional clarity is:

Why did you decide to revert the license change despite maintainers having originally been involved in approving it?
Why did you choose to link Jamie's dismissal with the license change?
Why did you open a pull request to remove your own employer (Microsoft) from the restricted list?

palantir/tslint#4132
palantir/tslint#4141
palantir/blueprint#2870
palantir/blueprint#2876
palantir/blueprint#2877

Why did he keep opening so many issues, harassing other people and why did he repeatedly refer to these free software projects that many people have contributed to as "my tools"? Is all the code his property? Are all the contributions by everyone else worthless?

"I kinda hope they do try to keep using my tools though" - From the motherboard article, emphasis added
"Also, stop using my tools (such as Babel)" - from /palantir/tslint/issues/4132

Babel is his property as well? Can someone help my understand why these are his property? Thanks.

nls0 · Aug 30, 2018

palantir/tslint#4132
palantir/tslint#4141
palantir/blueprint#2870
palantir/blueprint#2876
palantir/blueprint#2877

Why did he keep opening so many issues, harassing other people and why did he repeatedly refer to these free software projects that many people have contributed to as "my tools"? Is all the code his property? Are all the contributions by everyone else worthless?

"I kinda hope they do try to keep using my tools though" - From the motherboard article, emphasis added
"Also, stop using my tools (such as Babel)" - from /palantir/tslint/issues/4132

Babel is his property as well? Can someone help my understand why these are his property? Thanks.

@nls0 Those questions aren't relevant to the thread. You'd have to ask Jamie himself.

mAAdhaTTah · Aug 30, 2018

@nls0 Those questions aren't relevant to the thread. You'd have to ask Jamie himself.

Why did you decide to revert the license change despite maintainers having originally been involved in approving it?

I did not decide to revert the license change, I approved it. This decision was made by @evocateur and his resoning is very clear in #1633.

Why did you choose to link Jamie's dismissal with the license change?

I did not link Jamie's dismissal. @evocateur explained his reasoning in #1633

Why did you open a pull request to remove your own employer (Microsoft) from the restricted list?

I thought Microsoft was being treated unfairly and wanted to set the story straight.

TheLarkInn · Aug 30, 2018

Why did you decide to revert the license change despite maintainers having originally been involved in approving it?

I did not decide to revert the license change, I approved it. This decision was made by @evocateur and his resoning is very clear in #1633.

Why did you choose to link Jamie's dismissal with the license change?

I did not link Jamie's dismissal. @evocateur explained his reasoning in #1633

Why did you open a pull request to remove your own employer (Microsoft) from the restricted list?

I thought Microsoft was being treated unfairly and wanted to set the story straight.

@mAAdhaTTah Those questions are relevant to the thread. Read the title of the thread.

Edit: Since some people like @mAAdhaTTah don't seem to understand the relevance of the questions, here is the relevant part of the title: "Open an RFC to discuss decision to ... remove Jamie"

If you can't answer the questions, that's answer enough for this thread.

nls0 · Aug 30, 2018

@mAAdhaTTah Those questions are relevant to the thread. Read the title of the thread.

Edit: Since some people like @mAAdhaTTah don't seem to understand the relevance of the questions, here is the relevant part of the title: "Open an RFC to discuss decision to ... remove Jamie"

If you can't answer the questions, that's answer enough for this thread.

@TheLarkInn:

This decision was made by @evocateur and his resoning is very clear in #1633.

I disagree that this is very clear:

"the impact of this change was almost 100% negative, with no appreciable progress toward the ostensible goal aside from rancorous sniping and harmful drama."

The claims made here are not supported by evidence or arguments.

I did not link Jamie's dismissal. @evocateur explained his reasoning in #1633

This was the plural "you" here, as in "you, the maintainers." In any case, I still don't understand why Jamie's dismissal was linked as part of the same announcement, clearly implying that his dismissal had to do with his introduction of the modified MIT license.

I thought Microsoft was being treated unfairly and wanted to set the story straight.

Respectfully, given the conflict of interest between your role as a maintainer and your role as a Microsoft employee, I think you should have sat out of that decision. It certainly appears to many as though your loyalty to your employer influenced the revert back to the old license.

benwiley4000 · Aug 30, 2018

@TheLarkInn:

This decision was made by @evocateur and his resoning is very clear in #1633.

I disagree that this is very clear:

"the impact of this change was almost 100% negative, with no appreciable progress toward the ostensible goal aside from rancorous sniping and harmful drama."

The claims made here are not supported by evidence or arguments.

I did not link Jamie's dismissal. @evocateur explained his reasoning in #1633

This was the plural "you" here, as in "you, the maintainers." In any case, I still don't understand why Jamie's dismissal was linked as part of the same announcement, clearly implying that his dismissal had to do with his introduction of the modified MIT license.

I thought Microsoft was being treated unfairly and wanted to set the story straight.

Respectfully, given the conflict of interest between your role as a maintainer and your role as a Microsoft employee, I think you should have sat out of that decision. It certainly appears to many as though your loyalty to your employer influenced the revert back to the old license.

It certainly appears to many as though your loyalty to your employer influenced the revert back to the old license.

It did not. Please stop repeating this baseless canard.

evocateur · Aug 30, 2018

It certainly appears to many as though your loyalty to your employer influenced the revert back to the old license.

It did not. Please stop repeating this baseless canard.

@evocateur this is transparently absurd. You can't just say "I'm not influenced by the company who pays me" and thus make it so. I sometimes laugh at the Twitter refrain of "tech workers need to be trained in ethics," but perhaps it's true.

benwiley4000 · Aug 30, 2018

@evocateur this is transparently absurd. You can't just say "I'm not influenced by the company who pays me" and thus make it so. I sometimes laugh at the Twitter refrain of "tech workers need to be trained in ethics," but perhaps it's true.

@benwiley4000 If you're looking for "rancorous sniping and harmful drama" you might try using a mirror.

evocateur · Aug 30, 2018

@benwiley4000 If you're looking for "rancorous sniping and harmful drama" you might try using a mirror.

I never said it shouldn't or couldn't be discussed, I said it was discussion for the sake of discussion. Relax buddy, and read what people write before you respond.

hallister · Aug 31, 2018

I never said it shouldn't or couldn't be discussed, I said it was discussion for the sake of discussion. Relax buddy, and read what people write before you respond.

It's still funny the discussion is primarily "If you don't revert it you are complacent with separating families!". Which is a stupid untrue argument.

@krainboltgreene You're providing equal values of absolutely nothing to this discussion.

Sieabah · Aug 31, 2018

It's still funny the discussion is primarily "If you don't revert it you are complacent with separating families!". Which is a stupid untrue argument.

@krainboltgreene You're providing equal values of absolutely nothing to this discussion.

@krainboltgreene I laid out the factual arguments both pro and against the question of whether Lerna should be MIT or not. I also clearly prefaced my personal opinions as being my opinions. If you're only interested in making ad-hominen arguments, you're not adding to the discussion.

To be clear, my intention was not to dictate, but to spell out reasons why some forms of commentary are not fruitful in the context of what an RFC is typically designed for. You are more than welcome to make new arguments, if you have them, as long as they are on topic.

To that end, I'm going to repeat what I believe is the most important argument to this discussion: if you agree with the tenet that a non-MIT license will have any impact whatsoever on ICE, it follows that doing so may have a negative impact due to its indiscriminate and non-surgical nature. In other words, disrupting ICE operations can delay families from being reunited.

I don't believe even the most hardcore proponent of the non-MIT license can say in good conscience and good faith that unintended damage to the very cause it purports to serve is not a real possibility, and I think that reason alone should be enough for everyone to support the current decision.

lhorie · Aug 31, 2018

@krainboltgreene I laid out the factual arguments both pro and against the question of whether Lerna should be MIT or not. I also clearly prefaced my personal opinions as being my opinions. If you're only interested in making ad-hominen arguments, you're not adding to the discussion.

To be clear, my intention was not to dictate, but to spell out reasons why some forms of commentary are not fruitful in the context of what an RFC is typically designed for. You are more than welcome to make new arguments, if you have them, as long as they are on topic.

To that end, I'm going to repeat what I believe is the most important argument to this discussion: if you agree with the tenet that a non-MIT license will have any impact whatsoever on ICE, it follows that doing so may have a negative impact due to its indiscriminate and non-surgical nature. In other words, disrupting ICE operations can delay families from being reunited.

I don't believe even the most hardcore proponent of the non-MIT license can say in good conscience and good faith that unintended damage to the very cause it purports to serve is not a real possibility, and I think that reason alone should be enough for everyone to support the current decision.

You laid out opinions. You can't just declare a comment a "factual argument" and have it be so.

just because there is dissent is not enough reason for there to be a discussion

Opinion.

RFCs are not meant to be vehicles for discussion for the sake of discussion.

Opinion.

a legitimate desire to use a non-open-source license as a weapon to "punish the bad guys" (a view that seemed to be somewhat trollish in nature, from my observations, but I'm putting it here for completeness)

Opinion

a custom license is restrictive not only to a blacklist, but also any company with a whitelist OSS license policy (i.e. any company of non-trivial size)

Opinion.

whether maintainers with conflict of interest should recuse themselves from discussion

Opinion.

whether maintainers with conflict of interests should have recused themselves prior to the decision - an RFC isn't the place to debate the past, but to determined actionable items (if any) for the future

Opinion.

whether more voices would change the decision

Opinion.

krainboltgreene · Aug 31, 2018

You laid out opinions. You can't just declare a comment a "factual argument" and have it be so.

just because there is dissent is not enough reason for there to be a discussion

Opinion.

RFCs are not meant to be vehicles for discussion for the sake of discussion.

Opinion.

a legitimate desire to use a non-open-source license as a weapon to "punish the bad guys" (a view that seemed to be somewhat trollish in nature, from my observations, but I'm putting it here for completeness)

Opinion

a custom license is restrictive not only to a blacklist, but also any company with a whitelist OSS license policy (i.e. any company of non-trivial size)

Opinion.

whether maintainers with conflict of interest should recuse themselves from discussion

Opinion.

whether maintainers with conflict of interests should have recused themselves prior to the decision - an RFC isn't the place to debate the past, but to determined actionable items (if any) for the future

Opinion.

whether more voices would change the decision

Opinion.

You laid out opinions. You can't just declare a comment a "factual argument" and have it be so.

You laid out opinions. You can't just declare a comment to be a "opinion" and have it be so. Come on, now.

just because there is dissent is not enough reason for there to be a discussion
RFCs are not meant to be vehicles for discussion for the sake of discussion.

"An RFC is authored by engineers and computer scientists in the form of a memorandum describing methods, behaviors, research, or innovations applicable to the working of the Internet and Internet-connected systems. It is submitted either for peer review or to convey new concepts, information" *

"Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility"**

a legitimate desire to use a non-open-source license as a weapon to "punish the bad guys"

I'm more than happy to remove this from the argument list if you think it's not one, though I understand it to be the primary motivation behind the original change by Jamie.

a custom license is restrictive not only to a blacklist, but also any company with a whitelist OSS license policy (i.e. any company of non-trivial size)

It's a fact that engineers in my company would not be able to use software with such a license, for example. There are precedents documented elsewhere for React's old license as well.

the rest

Yes, as I said, I prefaced those with "Things I believe should not be part of the discussion". Those are my opinions. Even so, as I said, they are motivated by a desire to keep conversation productive, unlike those who are only here to make reddit-esque quips.

If I may be blunt, it feels like you're acting in bad faith, and I've no interest in petty bickering. @krainboltgreene

lhorie · Aug 31, 2018

You laid out opinions. You can't just declare a comment a "factual argument" and have it be so.

You laid out opinions. You can't just declare a comment to be a "opinion" and have it be so. Come on, now.

just because there is dissent is not enough reason for there to be a discussion
RFCs are not meant to be vehicles for discussion for the sake of discussion.

"An RFC is authored by engineers and computer scientists in the form of a memorandum describing methods, behaviors, research, or innovations applicable to the working of the Internet and Internet-connected systems. It is submitted either for peer review or to convey new concepts, information" *

"Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility"**

a legitimate desire to use a non-open-source license as a weapon to "punish the bad guys"

I'm more than happy to remove this from the argument list if you think it's not one, though I understand it to be the primary motivation behind the original change by Jamie.

a custom license is restrictive not only to a blacklist, but also any company with a whitelist OSS license policy (i.e. any company of non-trivial size)

It's a fact that engineers in my company would not be able to use software with such a license, for example. There are precedents documented elsewhere for React's old license as well.

the rest

Yes, as I said, I prefaced those with "Things I believe should not be part of the discussion". Those are my opinions. Even so, as I said, they are motivated by a desire to keep conversation productive, unlike those who are only here to make reddit-esque quips.

If I may be blunt, it feels like you're acting in bad faith, and I've no interest in petty bickering. @krainboltgreene

@SRGOM:

Can you social justice warriors stop using (and hence promoting) this platform owned by a major ICE collaborator?

benwiley4000 · Aug 31, 2018

@SRGOM:

Can you social justice warriors stop using (and hence promoting) this platform owned by a major ICE collaborator?

@SRGOM:

Can you social justice warriors stop using (and hence promoting) this platform owned by a major ICE collaborator?

You really wanna stick it to Microsoft? Delete your GitHub account. Better yet -- move the repository off of GitHub! They're soon going to be its owner.

robbyoconnor · Aug 31, 2018

@SRGOM:

Can you social justice warriors stop using (and hence promoting) this platform owned by a major ICE collaborator?

You really wanna stick it to Microsoft? Delete your GitHub account. Better yet -- move the repository off of GitHub! They're soon going to be its owner.

I'm confident benwiley4000 and krainboltgreene are just trolling at this point. Don't give them the effort of a response.

Sieabah · Aug 31, 2018

I'm confident benwiley4000 and krainboltgreene are just trolling at this point. Don't give them the effort of a response.

I want to start by saying that I agree that the license changes, as were initially implemented, were objectively poor and probably unenforceable from a legal perspective, and that it is probably justified to revert at least until a suitable replacement could be drafted and reviewed. What concerns me are a few things, however. First, the sentence from @evocateur in #1633

Despite the most noble of intentions, it is clear to me now that the impact of this change was almost 100% negative, with no appreciable progress toward the ostensible goal aside from rancorous sniping and harmful drama.

The very fact that there was a huge amount of drama and publicity around this change signifies that it is important and that it did affect appreciable progress. There was never any delusion, as far as I could tell, by those who supported this change, that this single license change would have ICE quake in their boots, as has been suggested to be the measure of what "affecting change" would be by many. However, it could have served as a stepping stone and a beacon which other projects could use, and eventually create change not only in relation to ICE directly but to the notion of ethics in open source coding and licenses.

@Sieabah

It's still funny the discussion is primarily "If you don't revert it you are complacent with separating families!". Which is a stupid untrue argument.

I haven't seen anyone use this as an argument in this entire thread actually, so I'm not sure where you're getting that this discussion is "primarily" about that.

@lachlanhunt

I would also strongly advise against attempting to use a copyright licence for political protests against contemporary political issues. Software copyright licences are long-lived documents that can outlive any government-of-the-day that happens to be disrupting or upsetting certain groups of people.

I think this is fairly silly--as has been alluded in other posts in this thread, Open Source licenses are exactly what you are arguing against -- political protests against contemporary political issues. These were seen as ridiculous not long ago in history, and are only recently gaining widespread approval. Just because they are now the status quo for many large pieces of software doesn't mean they are particularly old, and the fact is that they were very political pieces of activism, especially in the time when they were first being penned.

@lhorie

just because there is dissent is not enough reason for there to be a discussion. RFCs are not meant to be vehicles for discussion for the sake of discussion. What matters is the arguments for or against a change, its pros and cons and determining actionable steps.

I believe this is exactly why we want an RFC -- to discuss whether this change (or one like it) should be implemented or not. And I believe this is also what @hannahhoward meant by "discussion is needed," not just "discussion for the sake of discussion".

a legitimate desire to use a non-open-source license as a weapon to "punish the bad guys" (a view that seemed to be somewhat trollish in nature, from my observations, but I'm putting it here for completeness)

I don't believe that this intention is at all trollish, though the way you present it makes it sound slightly so. The idea is that we can use software and the control over we have over the software we write, one of which is the license of who gets to use it, in order to affect change in the world. You may say that this is political, but I would argue that by taking no action, you are in fact taking an action and affecting change. We must battle with which one is more positive or has a better ethical standing. I believe that this is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. However, as I said in the beginning, in the case of a license it does need to be more premediated and thought out because of the nature of legality and enforcement.

if you agree with the tenet that a non-MIT license will have any impact whatsoever on ICE, it follows that doing so may have a negative impact due to its indiscriminate and non-surgical nature. In other words, disrupting ICE operations can delay families from being reunited.

This assumes that any movement against ICE is inherently bad because it assumes that the short term negative impact would out weigh any long term benefit of having ICE gone. It also ignores the potential ways in which there would be benefits throughout the entire software development and sharing community, as I mentioned near the top of my post.

Not because it has anything to do with ICE, but due to the reasons cited here - TL;DR: it would make Lerna fundamentally non-open-source.

I believe that this argument is somewhat of a non-starter, as it asserts that "open source" is fundamentally better than "not open source." It also asserts that those definitions of "open source" are the correct ones and are not open for discussion. I think this is somewhat silly however, as what is and is not open source has been malleable and changed before, and I don't think it is out of the question for it to change again.

termhn · Sep 1, 2018

I want to start by saying that I agree that the license changes, as were initially implemented, were objectively poor and probably unenforceable from a legal perspective, and that it is probably justified to revert at least until a suitable replacement could be drafted and reviewed. What concerns me are a few things, however. First, the sentence from @evocateur in #1633

Despite the most noble of intentions, it is clear to me now that the impact of this change was almost 100% negative, with no appreciable progress toward the ostensible goal aside from rancorous sniping and harmful drama.

The very fact that there was a huge amount of drama and publicity around this change signifies that it is important and that it did affect appreciable progress. There was never any delusion, as far as I could tell, by those who supported this change, that this single license change would have ICE quake in their boots, as has been suggested to be the measure of what "affecting change" would be by many. However, it could have served as a stepping stone and a beacon which other projects could use, and eventually create change not only in relation to ICE directly but to the notion of ethics in open source coding and licenses.

@Sieabah

It's still funny the discussion is primarily "If you don't revert it you are complacent with separating families!". Which is a stupid untrue argument.

I haven't seen anyone use this as an argument in this entire thread actually, so I'm not sure where you're getting that this discussion is "primarily" about that.

@lachlanhunt

I would also strongly advise against attempting to use a copyright licence for political protests against contemporary political issues. Software copyright licences are long-lived documents that can outlive any government-of-the-day that happens to be disrupting or upsetting certain groups of people.

I think this is fairly silly--as has been alluded in other posts in this thread, Open Source licenses are exactly what you are arguing against -- political protests against contemporary political issues. These were seen as ridiculous not long ago in history, and are only recently gaining widespread approval. Just because they are now the status quo for many large pieces of software doesn't mean they are particularly old, and the fact is that they were very political pieces of activism, especially in the time when they were first being penned.

@lhorie

just because there is dissent is not enough reason for there to be a discussion. RFCs are not meant to be vehicles for discussion for the sake of discussion. What matters is the arguments for or against a change, its pros and cons and determining actionable steps.

I believe this is exactly why we want an RFC -- to discuss whether this change (or one like it) should be implemented or not. And I believe this is also what @hannahhoward meant by "discussion is needed," not just "discussion for the sake of discussion".

a legitimate desire to use a non-open-source license as a weapon to "punish the bad guys" (a view that seemed to be somewhat trollish in nature, from my observations, but I'm putting it here for completeness)

I don't believe that this intention is at all trollish, though the way you present it makes it sound slightly so. The idea is that we can use software and the control over we have over the software we write, one of which is the license of who gets to use it, in order to affect change in the world. You may say that this is political, but I would argue that by taking no action, you are in fact taking an action and affecting change. We must battle with which one is more positive or has a better ethical standing. I believe that this is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. However, as I said in the beginning, in the case of a license it does need to be more premediated and thought out because of the nature of legality and enforcement.

if you agree with the tenet that a non-MIT license will have any impact whatsoever on ICE, it follows that doing so may have a negative impact due to its indiscriminate and non-surgical nature. In other words, disrupting ICE operations can delay families from being reunited.

This assumes that any movement against ICE is inherently bad because it assumes that the short term negative impact would out weigh any long term benefit of having ICE gone. It also ignores the potential ways in which there would be benefits throughout the entire software development and sharing community, as I mentioned near the top of my post.

Not because it has anything to do with ICE, but due to the reasons cited here - TL;DR: it would make Lerna fundamentally non-open-source.

I believe that this argument is somewhat of a non-starter, as it asserts that "open source" is fundamentally better than "not open source." It also asserts that those definitions of "open source" are the correct ones and are not open for discussion. I think this is somewhat silly however, as what is and is not open source has been malleable and changed before, and I don't think it is out of the question for it to change again.

The "you're either with us entirely or you're against us" is disgusting. There's also this. I got a similar message from the same Ryan White guy. Stop this behavior. Grow up. Wanting a better solution doesn't mean we're in favor of what ICE is doing. This change was slacktivism at its finest. Wanna really stick it to MS, get off of GitHub. Delete your accounts now, Microsoft is going to be the owner of GitHub. It was symbolic at best, and even that was kind of laughable. If you don't delete your GitHub and are still trying to argue that this change being reverted is somehow endorsing what ICE is doing, guess what -- so does having a GitHub account if you're trying to use that argument, your credibility was just shattered.

robbyoconnor · Sep 1, 2018

The "you're either with us entirely or you're against us" is disgusting. There's also this. I got a similar message from the same Ryan White guy. Stop this behavior. Grow up. Wanting a better solution doesn't mean we're in favor of what ICE is doing. This change was slacktivism at its finest. Wanna really stick it to MS, get off of GitHub. Delete your accounts now, Microsoft is going to be the owner of GitHub. It was symbolic at best, and even that was kind of laughable. If you don't delete your GitHub and are still trying to argue that this change being reverted is somehow endorsing what ICE is doing, guess what -- so does having a GitHub account if you're trying to use that argument, your credibility was just shattered.

Also -- if you use Windows -- might I suggest not using it anymore? ⬇️ 🎤 👏 👏

robbyoconnor · Sep 1, 2018

Also -- if you use Windows -- might I suggest not using it anymore? ⬇️ 🎤 👏 👏

Oh boy...

@termhn The mentions of reverting to the original MIT license has been met with this statement enough times in enough issues, twitter, and reddit. It's not word for word what is said but it is heavily implied by "you support what ICE does".

I believe this is exactly why we want an RFC -- to discuss whether this change (or one like it) should be implemented or not.

No, it's a terrible idea. Any restriction on the license means it's no longer open source. If that's the goal then I think a lot of people will just drop Lerna because of licensing risk. If that's what you want just to make a statement then that's a very poor software decision.

I don't believe that this intention is at all trollish, though the way you present it makes it sound slightly so.

It was entirely a trollish act, it's undebatable. 👈 Multiple links

one of which is the license of who gets to use it, in order to affect change in the world. You may say that this is political, but I would argue that by taking no action, you are in fact taking an action and affecting change. We must battle with which one is more positive or has a better ethical standing.

The ethical standing is to honor an open license. If lerna doesn't want to be an open source project anymore that's a different story. You cannot restrict anyone. The discussion that everyone seems to be missing is that this change converts Lerna to a proprietary piece of software. Also you're nearing the ethical dilemma of the trolley problem, not exactly, but by saying "inaction is an action in itself" is a poor argument.

This assumes that any movement against ICE is inherently bad because it assumes that the short term negative impact would out weigh any long term benefit of having ICE gone. It also ignores the potential ways in which there would be benefits throughout the entire software development and sharing community, as I mentioned near the top of my post.

ICE isn't going anywhere and it probably won't in the next 10 years. Whether that is a positive or negative to whoever reads this is an unfortunate thing we have to deal with. I'm 99.9% sure lerna is nothing special at a government scale, and if ICE (or company in a binding contract with ICE) needed something like lerna they'd build it themselves or simply fork the old version. This license change effectively does nothing to the target. So the discussion is resulting in debating who can virtue signal the strongest.

I believe that this argument is somewhat of a non-starter, as it asserts that "open source" is fundamentally better than "not open source."

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "open" means if one cannot see the issue with a non-open license. You will have to fight the literally brick wall of Stallman to change what "open" source means if you want to challenge this. Non open licenses greatly increase risk of using the software (depending on the license, the bastardization of the MIT-ICE is a huge risk). If you want to build a company you simply don't pick licenses which can destroy your business in a day.

I think this is somewhat silly however, as what is and is not open source has been malleable and changed before, and I don't think it is out of the question for it to change again.

In what realm of reality does a strictly always open door, close? Open is open, closed is closed. Open source is non discriminatory, if you want to go down the path of "restrictive licensing is open source" then I don't see the issue with Facebook being able to restrict the people using React under their Patent license. Absolutely zero issues with a single entity controlling who uses the software while claiming to be open source.

Sieabah · Sep 1, 2018

Oh boy...

@termhn The mentions of reverting to the original MIT license has been met with this statement enough times in enough issues, twitter, and reddit. It's not word for word what is said but it is heavily implied by "you support what ICE does".

I believe this is exactly why we want an RFC -- to discuss whether this change (or one like it) should be implemented or not.

No, it's a terrible idea. Any restriction on the license means it's no longer open source. If that's the goal then I think a lot of people will just drop Lerna because of licensing risk. If that's what you want just to make a statement then that's a very poor software decision.

I don't believe that this intention is at all trollish, though the way you present it makes it sound slightly so.

It was entirely a trollish act, it's undebatable. 👈 Multiple links

one of which is the license of who gets to use it, in order to affect change in the world. You may say that this is political, but I would argue that by taking no action, you are in fact taking an action and affecting change. We must battle with which one is more positive or has a better ethical standing.

The ethical standing is to honor an open license. If lerna doesn't want to be an open source project anymore that's a different story. You cannot restrict anyone. The discussion that everyone seems to be missing is that this change converts Lerna to a proprietary piece of software. Also you're nearing the ethical dilemma of the trolley problem, not exactly, but by saying "inaction is an action in itself" is a poor argument.

This assumes that any movement against ICE is inherently bad because it assumes that the short term negative impact would out weigh any long term benefit of having ICE gone. It also ignores the potential ways in which there would be benefits throughout the entire software development and sharing community, as I mentioned near the top of my post.

ICE isn't going anywhere and it probably won't in the next 10 years. Whether that is a positive or negative to whoever reads this is an unfortunate thing we have to deal with. I'm 99.9% sure lerna is nothing special at a government scale, and if ICE (or company in a binding contract with ICE) needed something like lerna they'd build it themselves or simply fork the old version. This license change effectively does nothing to the target. So the discussion is resulting in debating who can virtue signal the strongest.

I believe that this argument is somewhat of a non-starter, as it asserts that "open source" is fundamentally better than "not open source."

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "open" means if one cannot see the issue with a non-open license. You will have to fight the literally brick wall of Stallman to change what "open" source means if you want to challenge this. Non open licenses greatly increase risk of using the software (depending on the license, the bastardization of the MIT-ICE is a huge risk). If you want to build a company you simply don't pick licenses which can destroy your business in a day.

I think this is somewhat silly however, as what is and is not open source has been malleable and changed before, and I don't think it is out of the question for it to change again.

In what realm of reality does a strictly always open door, close? Open is open, closed is closed. Open source is non discriminatory, if you want to go down the path of "restrictive licensing is open source" then I don't see the issue with Facebook being able to restrict the people using React under their Patent license. Absolutely zero issues with a single entity controlling who uses the software while claiming to be open source.

Folks who use terms like "virtue signaling" might not realize that is incredibly politically charged.

Also it's simply not true that restrictive clauses have no precedent in open source work. Everyone screaming that "this is no longer open source" needs to realize that A) we are not beholden to the OSI's definition of open source, and B) there is plenty of precedent with Commons Clause, Fair Source, License Zero, and even the original license for JSON (thanks to Mikeal Rogers [formerly of the Node.js Foundation] for pointing that out on Twitter). (source) (source)

benwiley4000 · Sep 1, 2018

Folks who use terms like "virtue signaling" might not realize that is incredibly politically charged.

Also it's simply not true that restrictive clauses have no precedent in open source work. Everyone screaming that "this is no longer open source" needs to realize that A) we are not beholden to the OSI's definition of open source, and B) there is plenty of precedent with Commons Clause, Fair Source, License Zero, and even the original license for JSON (thanks to Mikeal Rogers [formerly of the Node.js Foundation] for pointing that out on Twitter). (source) (source)

So we neither have a compelling reason for Jamie K. to have been kicked nor a compelling reason why the license was reverted. I am shocked.

So to recap:

All maintainers accepted the original pull request.
There's absolutely prior art on doing this sort of license change.
Jamie K.'s behavior was apparently considered bad, but not until big companies were involved.
No one in charge of this has listed any behavior that violated in the current implemented code of conduct.
We're still waiting on an official response to this issue, which was created because of (what is now) a clear attempt at silencing.
Multiple employees from a company on the list swooped down to convince a maintainer to revert the change (but not before specifically moving to revert their company's inclusion in the list, awkward).

And the result?

An immense amount of character assassination
The gamergate, anti-coc, and hard right crowd have been riled up
A fork that will surely not see life longer than a week but will have eaten plenty of valuable engineering time
A new surge of engineers who think ethics aren't their problem
ESR is talking again

krainboltgreene · Sep 1, 2018

So we neither have a compelling reason for Jamie K. to have been kicked nor a compelling reason why the license was reverted. I am shocked.

So to recap:

All maintainers accepted the original pull request.
There's absolutely prior art on doing this sort of license change.
Jamie K.'s behavior was apparently considered bad, but not until big companies were involved.
No one in charge of this has listed any behavior that violated in the current implemented code of conduct.
We're still waiting on an official response to this issue, which was created because of (what is now) a clear attempt at silencing.
Multiple employees from a company on the list swooped down to convince a maintainer to revert the change (but not before specifically moving to revert their company's inclusion in the list, awkward).

And the result?

An immense amount of character assassination
The gamergate, anti-coc, and hard right crowd have been riled up
A fork that will surely not see life longer than a week but will have eaten plenty of valuable engineering time
A new surge of engineers who think ethics aren't their problem
ESR is talking again

The comments he made on other projects is a violation of the CoC and that's why he was removed. I think that may have been the nth time someone has mentioned that to you.

So either you're illiterate or have an agenda.

Sieabah · Sep 1, 2018

The comments he made on other projects is a violation of the CoC and that's why he was removed. I think that may have been the nth time someone has mentioned that to you.

So either you're illiterate or have an agenda.

@Sieabah have you heard the phraee- will somebody please think of the children? That's it. Benevolent @krainbiltgreene is just thinking of the children [traffickers].

SRGOM · Sep 1, 2018

@Sieabah have you heard the phraee- will somebody please think of the children? That's it. Benevolent @krainbiltgreene is just thinking of the children [traffickers].

@robbyoconnor did we just say the exact same thing?

@benwiley4000 the image you posted is making me wonder if you have yet acted on @evocateur's mirror suggestion yet.

SRGOM · Sep 1, 2018

@robbyoconnor did we just say the exact same thing?

@benwiley4000 the image you posted is making me wonder if you have yet acted on @evocateur's mirror suggestion yet.

I'll just point out a particular sentence from the original licence change: #1616

Recently it has come to my attention that many of these companies which are being paid millions of dollars by ICE are also using some of the open source software that I helped build.

Emphasis on "helped"

I think there's quite a bit of needless character assassination going on. Perhaps James has made some unfortunate statements at different times, but in the context of this issue, it hardly looks like he has claimed personal ownership of Lerna or any other open source project.

hedgepigdaniel · Sep 1, 2018

I'll just point out a particular sentence from the original licence change: #1616

Recently it has come to my attention that many of these companies which are being paid millions of dollars by ICE are also using some of the open source software that I helped build.

Emphasis on "helped"

I think there's quite a bit of needless character assassination going on. Perhaps James has made some unfortunate statements at different times, but in the context of this issue, it hardly looks like he has claimed personal ownership of Lerna or any other open source project.

@hedgepigdaniel He did.

Here is one where he directly states Lerna is his project. palantir/blueprint#2877
Here is one where he claims babel is his project palantir/tslint#4132
Another one palantir/tslint#4141
Why does it keep happening D:? palantir/blueprint#2870

There is no character assassination going on, he acted shitty and is being called out on it.

Sieabah · Sep 1, 2018

@hedgepigdaniel He did.

Here is one where he directly states Lerna is his project. palantir/blueprint#2877
Here is one where he claims babel is his project palantir/tslint#4132
Another one palantir/tslint#4141
Why does it keep happening D:? palantir/blueprint#2870

There is no character assassination going on, he acted shitty and is being called out on it.

@SRGOM -- no I said for people who are against the change being reverted to look at the fact that they are using MS products -- which makes them hypocrites. If you want to boycott Microsoft, maybe don't use their products -- or even better get off of GitHub. I'm not even sure what you said -- to be honest I stopped reading it after the first sentence.

robbyoconnor · Sep 1, 2018

@SRGOM -- no I said for people who are against the change being reverted to look at the fact that they are using MS products -- which makes them hypocrites. If you want to boycott Microsoft, maybe don't use their products -- or even better get off of GitHub. I'm not even sure what you said -- to be honest I stopped reading it after the first sentence.

@SRGOM -- So for all this grandstanding you're doing -- why not delete your GitHub account...seriously -- MS will own GitHub soon. Also -- change your OS from Windows -- if you use that...

robbyoconnor · Sep 1, 2018

@SRGOM -- So for all this grandstanding you're doing -- why not delete your GitHub account...seriously -- MS will own GitHub soon. Also -- change your OS from Windows -- if you use that...

I believe this is exactly why we want an RFC -- to discuss whether this change (or one like it) should be implemented or not

I agree that this is the intent, but in practice, that's not the impression I got from reading this thread so far. The majority of comments are either trolling or doing passive-aggressive witch hunts (and sadly I'm seeing this behaviour from both sides of the discussion...)

I'm not sure if there needs to be more clarity in terms of an RFC is typically supposed to look like (given that it is, admittedly, a new process in this specific org), which is why I offered my opinions on what is appropriate. If people disagree, they could potentially look at other orgs' RFC processes to get an idea of how one is structured (React and Ember both have RFC processes that could serve as reference, for example). In any case, I think we would all agree that all commenters should be following the basic rule of thumb of "if a comment would be inappropriate in a technical discussion, it has no place in an RFC discussion either".

The idea is that we can use software and the control over we have over the software we write, one of which is the license of who gets to use it

I understand this intent, but I have not seen anyone address the concerns about what happens with non-blacklisted companies being unable to use such licensed software. This concern was dismissed as if it were a problem that did not exist, rather than a significant one (especially for something that is so geared towards big company workflows such as Lerna). For example, @evocateur (or whoever is the maintainer at any time)'s employer could disallow him from using a hypothetically non-OSI-compliant Lerna at work. If that was the only reason he was working on Lerna, there's a good chance the project would lose its steward and effectively die. Likewise, I might spend company time to contribute a PR to a MIT-licensed Lerna if I need the fix for work, but I will certainly not know to do so if I'm not allowed to use it due to licensing issues in the first place.

This assumes that any movement against ICE is inherently bad because it assumes that the short term negative impact would out weigh any long term benefit of having ICE gone

No, the point is that we can't possibly estimate the impact, both positive and negative. We cannot make assumptions that the positives will outweigh the negatives or vice versa. The argument for a non-OSS license boils down to "something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done". No, it must not. Whatever was the latest heated Javascript-related topic of the week on Hacker News is statistically unlikely to be even remotely close to being an appropriate response to an issue that likely no one here has any real life understanding of, other than what they read on some news site while sipping their coffees.

It's especially disingenuous to say this must be done, if the person saying so did not even bother to try to research what other things could have been done instead, or what is being done, even. To illustrate the level of myopia here, there was a PR on Jamie's repo to add Uber to the blacklist, despite the fact that Uber is donating rides and meals to families separated by ICE*.

For those who are not familiar with the RFC processes I linked above, there are very important sections that are absent in virtually the entirety of the discourse here: Alternatives, Drawbacks and Unresolved Questions. For all the talk about how now is the best time to discuss, there's surprisingly little content that can be used to fill these sections that are designed to address contentiousness.

it asserts that "open source" is fundamentally better than "not open source."

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, there's already a well established way of running non-OSS software: pay for it. This very discussion is open because the maintainers feel that inclusion of all parties is of utmost importance to the success of this project. They could just tell everyone to go away, or even pull a uws** and they'd be entirely within their rights to do so. Using the privilege of having this forum to argue that the maintainers should adopt a restrictive license is biting the hand that feeds. I think the non-starter here is to suggest that maintainers ought to maintain a project that they themselves may not be able to use under some circumstances.

lhorie · Sep 1, 2018

I believe this is exactly why we want an RFC -- to discuss whether this change (or one like it) should be implemented or not

I agree that this is the intent, but in practice, that's not the impression I got from reading this thread so far. The majority of comments are either trolling or doing passive-aggressive witch hunts (and sadly I'm seeing this behaviour from both sides of the discussion...)

I'm not sure if there needs to be more clarity in terms of an RFC is typically supposed to look like (given that it is, admittedly, a new process in this specific org), which is why I offered my opinions on what is appropriate. If people disagree, they could potentially look at other orgs' RFC processes to get an idea of how one is structured (React and Ember both have RFC processes that could serve as reference, for example). In any case, I think we would all agree that all commenters should be following the basic rule of thumb of "if a comment would be inappropriate in a technical discussion, it has no place in an RFC discussion either".

The idea is that we can use software and the control over we have over the software we write, one of which is the license of who gets to use it

I understand this intent, but I have not seen anyone address the concerns about what happens with non-blacklisted companies being unable to use such licensed software. This concern was dismissed as if it were a problem that did not exist, rather than a significant one (especially for something that is so geared towards big company workflows such as Lerna). For example, @evocateur (or whoever is the maintainer at any time)'s employer could disallow him from using a hypothetically non-OSI-compliant Lerna at work. If that was the only reason he was working on Lerna, there's a good chance the project would lose its steward and effectively die. Likewise, I might spend company time to contribute a PR to a MIT-licensed Lerna if I need the fix for work, but I will certainly not know to do so if I'm not allowed to use it due to licensing issues in the first place.

This assumes that any movement against ICE is inherently bad because it assumes that the short term negative impact would out weigh any long term benefit of having ICE gone

No, the point is that we can't possibly estimate the impact, both positive and negative. We cannot make assumptions that the positives will outweigh the negatives or vice versa. The argument for a non-OSS license boils down to "something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done". No, it must not. Whatever was the latest heated Javascript-related topic of the week on Hacker News is statistically unlikely to be even remotely close to being an appropriate response to an issue that likely no one here has any real life understanding of, other than what they read on some news site while sipping their coffees.

It's especially disingenuous to say this must be done, if the person saying so did not even bother to try to research what other things could have been done instead, or what is being done, even. To illustrate the level of myopia here, there was a PR on Jamie's repo to add Uber to the blacklist, despite the fact that Uber is donating rides and meals to families separated by ICE*.

For those who are not familiar with the RFC processes I linked above, there are very important sections that are absent in virtually the entirety of the discourse here: Alternatives, Drawbacks and Unresolved Questions. For all the talk about how now is the best time to discuss, there's surprisingly little content that can be used to fill these sections that are designed to address contentiousness.

it asserts that "open source" is fundamentally better than "not open source."

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, there's already a well established way of running non-OSS software: pay for it. This very discussion is open because the maintainers feel that inclusion of all parties is of utmost importance to the success of this project. They could just tell everyone to go away, or even pull a uws** and they'd be entirely within their rights to do so. Using the privilege of having this forum to argue that the maintainers should adopt a restrictive license is biting the hand that feeds. I think the non-starter here is to suggest that maintainers ought to maintain a project that they themselves may not be able to use under some circumstances.

@robbyoconnor you and @SRGOM agree, they were being sarcastic......

benwiley4000 · Sep 1, 2018

@robbyoconnor you and @SRGOM agree, they were being sarcastic......

@Sieabah as I said perhaps he made some unfortunate statements - what I'm trying to say is that if you look at the license change PR where he elaborated, it does not look like he thinks he personally owns the project at the exclusion of anybody else. He did not push the change without review. When people say "my" thing, it can mean a lot of different things - its usually not helpful to draw strong conclusions from the use of that word.

Looking at the commit history, it does look like he was heavily involved in the early days of Lerna. I assume he means "my" in a similar sense - "Lerna is a project which I was heavily involved in and I share significant responsibility for creating".

hedgepigdaniel · Sep 1, 2018

@Sieabah as I said perhaps he made some unfortunate statements - what I'm trying to say is that if you look at the license change PR where he elaborated, it does not look like he thinks he personally owns the project at the exclusion of anybody else. He did not push the change without review. When people say "my" thing, it can mean a lot of different things - its usually not helpful to draw strong conclusions from the use of that word.

Looking at the commit history, it does look like he was heavily involved in the early days of Lerna. I assume he means "my" in a similar sense - "Lerna is a project which I was heavily involved in and I share significant responsibility for creating".

@robbyoconnor you and @SRGOM agree, they were being sarcastic......

Oh Jesus nevermind -- I'm an idiot I guess 😂 -- apologies @SRGOM :)

robbyoconnor · Sep 1, 2018

@robbyoconnor you and @SRGOM agree, they were being sarcastic......

Oh Jesus nevermind -- I'm an idiot I guess 😂 -- apologies @SRGOM :)

@lhorie

I'm not sure if there needs to be more clarity in terms of an RFC is typically supposed to look like (given that it is, admittedly, a new process in this specific org), which is why I offered my opinions on what is appropriate.

I would agree if this were the actual RFC thread, but this is actually just a thread requesting an RFC should exist in the first place. Therefore I don't think it's valid to judge peoples' comments here as what they would have said in an actual RFC.

Whatever was the latest heated Javascript-related topic of the week on Hacker News is statistically unlikely to be even remotely close to being an appropriate response to an issue that likely no one here has any real life understanding of, other than what they read on some news site while sipping their coffees.

And yet the reason we have OSS licenses as a staple of modern software development today was the continued preaching of outcast mailing list users in the last few decades, and you could extend this to basically any successful political protest as well.

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, there's already a well established way of running non-OSS software: pay for it.

There's also lots of not OSS software that is free as in beer.

This very discussion is open because the maintainers feel that inclusion of all parties is of utmost importance to the success of this project.

And I appreciate that this is true, but being "non-OSS" would not preclude this from happening by default anyway.

@Sieabah

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "open" means if one cannot see the issue with a non-open license. You will have to fight the literally brick wall of Stallman to change what "open" source means if you want to challenge this.

And yet Stallman's own license is one of the most restrictive and closed-door OSS licenses there is. He just closes the door on a different group of people: the group of people that want to use or modify his code without sharing back their changes. There's not a fundamental difference between that and precluding groups for another reason. This is also why I think the OSI page on "evil", originated from the JSON license, is fairly crap. I think the "do no evil line" is also terrible because it's even less enforceable than what the MIT-ICE license was, but the discussion in OSS around being able to preclude wrongdoers from using code has been very backwards IMO.

ICE isn't going anywhere and it probably won't in the next 10 years. Whether that is a positive or negative to whoever reads this is an unfortunate thing we have to deal with. I'm 99.9% sure lerna is nothing special at a government scale, and if ICE (or company in a binding contract with ICE) needed something like lerna they'd build it themselves or simply fork the old version. This license change effectively does nothing to the target.

As I said, Lerna's own license change is not meant to harm ICE by itself in any significant way, it's meant to

Deal with the ethical concerns of allowing a harmful entity to use your code
Show other OSS projects that this is a real dilemma and hopefully spark them to discuss and maybe take the same action

If many OSS projects do the same thing, then there could be real, large-scale change over time.

It was entirely a trollish act, it's undebatable. 👈 Multiple links

None of those show a trollish intent behind the action at all, and in the actual PR that was made, the changes were discussed in a very professional manner, all (at the time available) protocols were followed, and a calm and deliberate reasoning was given. Being terse and (arguably) rude to companies over their using tools he contributed to does not constitute the action being trollish.

termhn · Sep 1, 2018

@lhorie

I'm not sure if there needs to be more clarity in terms of an RFC is typically supposed to look like (given that it is, admittedly, a new process in this specific org), which is why I offered my opinions on what is appropriate.

I would agree if this were the actual RFC thread, but this is actually just a thread requesting an RFC should exist in the first place. Therefore I don't think it's valid to judge peoples' comments here as what they would have said in an actual RFC.

Whatever was the latest heated Javascript-related topic of the week on Hacker News is statistically unlikely to be even remotely close to being an appropriate response to an issue that likely no one here has any real life understanding of, other than what they read on some news site while sipping their coffees.

And yet the reason we have OSS licenses as a staple of modern software development today was the continued preaching of outcast mailing list users in the last few decades, and you could extend this to basically any successful political protest as well.

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, there's already a well established way of running non-OSS software: pay for it.

There's also lots of not OSS software that is free as in beer.

This very discussion is open because the maintainers feel that inclusion of all parties is of utmost importance to the success of this project.

And I appreciate that this is true, but being "non-OSS" would not preclude this from happening by default anyway.

@Sieabah

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "open" means if one cannot see the issue with a non-open license. You will have to fight the literally brick wall of Stallman to change what "open" source means if you want to challenge this.

And yet Stallman's own license is one of the most restrictive and closed-door OSS licenses there is. He just closes the door on a different group of people: the group of people that want to use or modify his code without sharing back their changes. There's not a fundamental difference between that and precluding groups for another reason. This is also why I think the OSI page on "evil", originated from the JSON license, is fairly crap. I think the "do no evil line" is also terrible because it's even less enforceable than what the MIT-ICE license was, but the discussion in OSS around being able to preclude wrongdoers from using code has been very backwards IMO.

ICE isn't going anywhere and it probably won't in the next 10 years. Whether that is a positive or negative to whoever reads this is an unfortunate thing we have to deal with. I'm 99.9% sure lerna is nothing special at a government scale, and if ICE (or company in a binding contract with ICE) needed something like lerna they'd build it themselves or simply fork the old version. This license change effectively does nothing to the target.

As I said, Lerna's own license change is not meant to harm ICE by itself in any significant way, it's meant to

Deal with the ethical concerns of allowing a harmful entity to use your code
Show other OSS projects that this is a real dilemma and hopefully spark them to discuss and maybe take the same action

If many OSS projects do the same thing, then there could be real, large-scale change over time.

It was entirely a trollish act, it's undebatable. 👈 Multiple links

None of those show a trollish intent behind the action at all, and in the actual PR that was made, the changes were discussed in a very professional manner, all (at the time available) protocols were followed, and a calm and deliberate reasoning was given. Being terse and (arguably) rude to companies over their using tools he contributed to does not constitute the action being trollish.

@hedgepigdaniel Sure, I'm sure you could argue Adolf was a pretty cool guy if you ignore all the other stuff he did and just focus on his gun control policy. 🔥

If you just excuse it as "unfortunate" then you're just trying to justify your own opinions.

@termhn The difference between having a strict license vs claiming it's open. As I said numerous times, if the goal is to have lerna be proprietary that's a different discussion. At the current time, and as far as I know, lerna plans to stay as an open source project.

If many OSS projects do the same thing, then there could be real, large-scale change over time.

Then none of them are open source anymore. You have collectively made a proprietary license. We're not arguing that so it's a moot point to even mention.

None of those show a trollish intent behind the action at all, and in the actual PR that was made, the changes were discussed in a very professional manner, all (at the time available) protocols were followed, and a calm and deliberate reasoning was given.

He made multiple issues in the same project that all state the same thing, linking to the same resources which are there to incite hatred from a group of people towards a company. See this definition:

trolling: make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

My god, it's exactly what he did.

Sieabah · Sep 1, 2018

@hedgepigdaniel Sure, I'm sure you could argue Adolf was a pretty cool guy if you ignore all the other stuff he did and just focus on his gun control policy. 🔥

If you just excuse it as "unfortunate" then you're just trying to justify your own opinions.

@termhn The difference between having a strict license vs claiming it's open. As I said numerous times, if the goal is to have lerna be proprietary that's a different discussion. At the current time, and as far as I know, lerna plans to stay as an open source project.

If many OSS projects do the same thing, then there could be real, large-scale change over time.

Then none of them are open source anymore. You have collectively made a proprietary license. We're not arguing that so it's a moot point to even mention.

None of those show a trollish intent behind the action at all, and in the actual PR that was made, the changes were discussed in a very professional manner, all (at the time available) protocols were followed, and a calm and deliberate reasoning was given.

He made multiple issues in the same project that all state the same thing, linking to the same resources which are there to incite hatred from a group of people towards a company. See this definition:

trolling: make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

My god, it's exactly what he did.

And we're done. I'm going to spend the rest of the long weekend restoring my mental health. I'll resume my pariah duties on Tuesday.

evocateur · Sep 1, 2018

And we're done. I'm going to spend the rest of the long weekend restoring my mental health. I'll resume my pariah duties on Tuesday.

hannahhoward referenced this issue Aug 30, 2018
Closed
Request to discuss maintenance cowardice #1635

lerna locked as too heated and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 1, 2018

evocateur closed this Sep 1, 2018

lerna/lerna

Join GitHub today

Open an RFC to discuss decision to revert License and remove Jamie #1639

Comments

hannahhoward commented Aug 30, 2018 • edited

hannahhoward referenced this issue Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

shushugah commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

hannahhoward commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

benwiley4000 commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

nls0 commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

benwiley4000 commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

darthtrevino commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

hallister commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

hannahhoward commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

hannahhoward commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

hallister commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

mAAdhaTTah commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

benwiley4000 commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

hallister commented Aug 30, 2018 • edited

This comment has been minimized.

hallister commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

jwietelmann commented Aug 30, 2018 • edited

This comment has been minimized.

hannahhoward commented Aug 30, 2018 • edited

This comment has been minimized.

hannahhoward commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

evocateur commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

shushugah commented Aug 30, 2018 • edited

This comment has been minimized.

TheLarkInn commented Aug 30, 2018 • edited

This comment has been minimized.

benwiley4000 commented Aug 30, 2018 • edited

This comment has been minimized.

nls0 commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

mAAdhaTTah commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

TheLarkInn commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

nls0 commented Aug 30, 2018 • edited

This comment has been minimized.

benwiley4000 commented Aug 30, 2018 • edited

This comment has been minimized.

evocateur commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

benwiley4000 commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

evocateur commented Aug 30, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

hallister commented Aug 31, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

Sieabah commented Aug 31, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

lhorie commented Aug 31, 2018 • edited

This comment has been minimized.

krainboltgreene commented Aug 31, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

lhorie commented Aug 31, 2018 • edited

This comment has been minimized.

benwiley4000 commented Aug 31, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

robbyoconnor commented Aug 31, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

Sieabah commented Aug 31, 2018

hannahhoward commented Aug 30, 2018 •

edited

hallister commented Aug 30, 2018 •

edited

jwietelmann commented Aug 30, 2018 •

edited

hannahhoward commented Aug 30, 2018 •

edited

shushugah commented Aug 30, 2018 •

edited

TheLarkInn commented Aug 30, 2018 •

edited

benwiley4000 commented Aug 30, 2018 •

edited

nls0 commented Aug 30, 2018 •

edited

benwiley4000 commented Aug 30, 2018 •

edited

lhorie commented Aug 31, 2018 •

edited

lhorie commented Aug 31, 2018 •

edited

robbyoconnor commented Sep 1, 2018 •

edited

Sieabah commented Sep 1, 2018 •

edited

krainboltgreene commented Sep 1, 2018 •

edited

hedgepigdaniel commented Sep 1, 2018 •

edited