18:37 <ja> hey, i'm active

18:38 <pikajude> ja, you are

18:39 <ja> hi pikajude!

18:39 <pikajude> that's what they all say

18:39 <ja> :<

18:39 <ja> let's talk about Paws then

19:15 <ja> damn it, The Game

19:33 <jfhbrook> ljharb: anyone PR ayo support to nvm yet? asking here cause I don't wanna cause a kerfluffle

19:42 <ljharb> lol thanks

19:42 <ljharb> no, and i don't think they should

19:42 <ljharb> https://github.com/creationix/nvm/issues/1595

19:43 <ljharb> but basically, i <3 all the people doing ayo, and i <3 what they want to do, but i think a fork is a really dumb way to go about trying to do it - and my suspicion is that most of their complaints will be largely resolved in the coming weeks (but we'll see)

19:44 <ljharb> and then from a more objective viewpoint, ayo is nowhere near ready to be supported or used by anyone

19:44 <jfhbrook> yeah I feel you

19:44 <ljharb> see the list of 5 criteria i posted in that issue

19:44 <ljharb> (which objectively applied to io.js when i added support)

19:45 <ljharb> there were clear technical reasons to use `iojs` over `node`; it's not a very strong argument to use ayo until there's clear technical reasons to do so

19:45 <ljharb> the way i built iojs makes it relatively trivial to add support for ayo, ofc

19:46 <ja> did they just fork node for fun?

19:46 <ljharb> no

19:46 <ljharb> they forked node for very valid and important inclusivity and community management reasons

19:46 <ja> their readme is pretty sparse

19:46 <ja> oh

19:47 <ljharb> buttttt a fork is a really weird approach to fixing those problems, and they did it within a week of the drama happening

19:47 <ljharb> we'll see tho

19:48 <jfhbrook> ayo is strictly a political statement at this point, at least barring a bunch of ctc people jumping ship

19:48 <jfhbrook> it *could* be a real thing

19:48 <jfhbrook> but it's not *yet*, and most people are in a wait-and-see holding pattern

19:48 <ljharb> right

19:48 <jfhbrook> imo the only reason iojs succeeded was because they were able to make most of the people involved, ie the ctc's predecessors, move to the new project immediately

19:48 <ljharb> i don't even think it's that

19:49 <ljharb> it's because nothing had happened in node for years

19:49 <ljharb> and it was plainly obvious that joyent via tj controlled node and was forcing it to stagnate

19:49 <ljharb> iow there was years of good faith effort to fix the project before they bailed

19:49 <ljharb> (public, loud, good faith effort)

19:49 <ljharb> here there was tons of effort for awhile, but none after the explosion surfaced to a large group of people

19:50 <ljharb> anyways i don't want to like, tone police them, or anything

19:50 <ljharb> they're in the right and their haters are POSsesses

19:50 <ljharb> but i still don't agree with the approach ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

19:51 <jfhbrook> I think a lot of people have been trying to fix the rod situation for a long time but behind the scenes

19:51 <jfhbrook> think years

19:52 <jfhbrook> and no I don't think you're tone policing or being a shitlord, you just want to feel like people have tried to fix this properly, in good faith

19:52 <jfhbrook> and I agree that this hasn't been exhausted, yet

19:52 <jfhbrook> but the stuff with the inclusivity wg was years ago

20:28 <ljharb> a year, yeah

20:28 <ljharb> but these issues weren't really raised publicly then, it seems

21:19 <jfhbrook> no, they weren't

21:19 <jfhbrook> it sounds like they really did try to exhaust their options in a private setting