A guy involved in the drama and self-exile of a key Node contributor is now starting his own company to profit from what has long been regarded "community" infrastructure. He wants your money. For some people, past behaviour and conduct might be a factor in deciding whether or not to support NPM Inc.
There were a lot of people "involved" in the drama. The overwhelming majority were against the guy who exiled himself. I guess I'm really not seeing the issue here, and think that "this guy who is setting up a company was involved in drama he did not create himself" feels tenuous.
Ben rejected a third party pull request, Isaac commited a change related to the pull request, Ben rejected Isaac's commit because Isaac broke the commit rules by not getting sign-off before committing.
I did not break any commit rules. I acted as an agent of the company that is responsible for management of that project, and I did so in a manner that promoted the company's agenda. (Which, just incidentally, is that OSS should be inclusive of non-male people, and that our language should reflect this explicit inclusion.)
"Libel"? What did Bryan write that was a false statement? There were some unkind judgements, but I didn't see any factually untrue statements in it.
If not, then as it turns out, your claim that Bryan committed libel is itself libel, as it impugns his character by promoting a falsehood (ie, that he committed libel).
Key node members fighting amongst themselves is pointless news?
Or how about Joyent saying they would sack Ben even though he didn't work for them?