Can someone explain what happened? The article did a very poor job at it (or, at least, I didn't understand it), as it seemed to contradict itself or not shed enough light on things.
What did Vagg actually do? Why did other members leave?
What did Vagg actually do? Why did other members leave?
He lists the issues himself in his response post [2] (see 'Response to the list of complaints'), where he also states 'Please note that I did not ask for this text to be redacted.' (although it's unclear whether he refers to the redaction of certain links in the list as copied in his post, or the whole list on nodejs/TSC#310).
So [1] seems to be the authoritative source on the Node side, [2] the authoritative source on the opposite side.
Disclaimer again, I'm not taking sides, I haven't read everything yet, I'm just gathering links for people to draw their own conclusions.
[1]: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310
[2]: https://medium.com/@rvagg/the-truth-about-rod-vagg-f063f6a53...
The background context can be read here, https://web.archive.org/web/20170821222518/https://github.co...
The gist of it is that back in March the Nodejs board realized it was in non-compliance with its by-laws. The by-laws limit board membership to one employee per employer unless that company is a Platinum sponsor. Vagg and another board member were(are?) employed by the same company and that company was(is?) not a Platinum sponsor. Legal council had confirmed the opinion that this was in non-compliance with the bylaws.
The community did not appear to support changing the by-laws to allow the two members to continue to serve. Vagg's response in the linked discussion did not suggest any sort of path toward solving the problem.
--- Speculation follows
The by-laws did not provide a mechanism for handling this situation. Neither of the two employees resigned. The company did not become a Platinum sponsor. The board continued to be in non-compliance.
---Discussion
A person could make a plausible case that continued presence on the board that causes non-compliance is not an acting good faith and is therefore a possible code of conduct violation at the level of a board member. It is hard for an argument that non-compliance with the bylaws is acceptable to gain traction.
[OK, a bit more speculation] The Node Foundation's statement regarding removal is more likely to be related to by-law non-compliance than the code of conduct. Non-compliance with the by-laws is the level at which the Foundation is appropriately involved. Based on the archived discussion, the need to change the Board membership has been known for nearly six months. The failed vote to remove a member and neither conflicting member resigning means that the board is unable to resolve the problem on its own.
If I don't provide sources, and the accusers don't provide sources, who should we believe?