Tony Mobily: Mike, what happened after the fork?
nan (Native Abstract for Node).
TM: What happened to node's development since the split?
It continued, and at a slightly improved pace but nothing compared to io.js. In io.js we actually reached a record number of contributions within just a few months — that was due in large part to implementing a much more participatory development and governance policy which is now the basis of the policy we are using for node.js under the Node Foundation.
Fremantle counselling -- does it interest you?
+If software development is stressing you out, or if you need help, you can have Perth Counselling at your fingertips!
TM: Things have changed since then: io.js and Node.js are now merging, in terms of codebase and administration. io.js will actually join a foundation created by... Joyent. Did you coordinate with Joyent in February, when they actually created the foundation?
MR: We had been advocating for node.js to be in a neutral foundation since before we created the io.js fork. We even advocated our preference for a new foundation formed under the Linux Foundation’s Collaborative Projects Initiative and that’s what Joyent ended up deciding to do after a series of talks with the LF.
Since even before the io.js fork happened members of io.js were working with Joyent through their Advisory Board and then with the Linux Foundation to adopt a governance model in the Node.js Foundation that could bring the projects back together.
TM: One of the main problems was the slow development pace of node.js under Joyent. Will this change with node being handed over to the Node.js foundation? It seems like io.js and Joyent have very different ideas in terms of releasing and the foundation's technical team (which I understand will be a merge of the two teams) might end up in conflict within the foundation…
MR: The development policies of io.js are the basis for how we do regular releases and accept new contributions. The conservative nature of Joyent’s policies for node.js are found in the LTS (Long Term Support) strategy we are implementing for older (but highly depended on) release lines. There isn’t much of a conflict between these two priorities now that we’ve created a process that appeals to both sets of users and contributors.
TM: Have you already started to actively merge the codebases?
MR: Yup https://github.com/nodejs/node.
The io.js TC and the node.js core team have merged in to a unified TSC (Technical Steering Committee) under the Node Foundation and are collaboratively converging the code bases and, simultaneously, releasing older release lines of node.js and io.js until that convergence is complete.
TM: Is the trademark of "Node" being transferred as well? If somebody wants to create a web site about node.js with the "node" word in it, will they have to ask the newly formed Node.js foundation? Does the foundation already have some policies set in terms of allowing people to use the word "Node" in a Node.js context?
MR: The foundation’s trademark policy can be found here foundation-trademark-policy.pdf.
It answers most of these questions and, yes, the foundation can approve any use of the mark.
Also, the use of “Node” in a “Node.js context” is a very tricky thing in terms of trademark law, especially considering that “node” is a generally used programming term — you’d need to talk to a real lawyer to explain that :)