Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who controls glibc?

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 528 posts

Re: Who controls glibc?

#431

Post by geezerjay »

da_chicken wrote: post #269
mycall wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets think how many hours RMS has put into GNU over the years. That should count for something, no?

Alright, so where is that line drawn? RMS is the project lead, but it's a community project and at some point the consensus will be that he is just wrong. Clearly that line must exist somewhere, or eglibc would never have been. But the existence of a fork isn't the minimum point since that takes quite a lot to overcome the inertia of forming a new project. The point I keep coming back to is: What is the purpose of th…

> but it's a community project and at some point the consensus will be that he is just wrong.

No, that's just your prejudice talking. The consensus can just as well be that RMS has a point and that a lone maintainer has no legitimacy to dictate policy, let alone override executive decisions. RMS is the founder of many GNU projects and is also the president of the FSF. Just because some dude has access to a repository of a FSF project that doesn't give him the right to hijack the project to suit his fancy. It's a FSF project and the project's driving policy is set by the FSF.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#432

Post by eesmith »

jacobush wrote: post #418
eesmith wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been trying to figure out an answer which was more concrete than "I disagree", and ran into the problem that I can't figure out what "dictator" is supposed to mean, other than "person in authority whom I disagree with." I mean, people called Obama a dictator ( https://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-newly-see-obama-... ), Jeremy Corby ( http://www.livetradingnews.com/jeremy-corbyn-turns-dictator-... ), a tea…

People call all sorts of things, all sorts of words. It's common in discourse to use a little hyperbole. That does not make Obama, or Jeremy Corbyn, bona fide dictators. Even as stated, you miss the mark. The president is chief of the executive branch of the US, yes. But the president is not chief of congress, or the judicial system.

Certainly. I was the one who wrote that "the CEO is not a dictator".

This is trivially true as the CEO is not the authoritarian head of a country.

So I must have meant something a little hyperbolic.

I just don't know how to define that in any meaningful sense so as to be able to talk about it.

I don't know what mark I missed. I objected to the llukas' proposition that the CEO in a business "ultimately controls the project goals." I agree that in the US government, the chief executive does not have full control. I think it's meaningful point that the chief executive does not necessarily have final control.

Personally, I think it's a simpler story to talk about the CEO as some sort of heroic authoritarian leader, which is why we end up with those sorts of stories.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#433

Post by paulmd »

p_l wrote: post #424
craigsmansion wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wish I could make RMS, and you, and everyone who agrees with you, live in a sort of reverse-Kantian world, where whatever you advocate for as acceptable behavior when you do it becomes a universal law of conduct for other people to use when interacting with you. You want to transport me back to the 70's MIT AI lab? I'm so there!

Considering the stories of the breakdown of MIT AI Lab, you might be... surprised. (No, Levy's book was not honest to the facts)

I don't know the context of this, explanation?

Re: Who controls glibc?

#434

Post by oblio »

labster wrote: post #364
shub wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there really a clear line of authority between the glibc maintainers and RMS? It certainly doesn't seem like it. Authority decays, and RMS's is gone, over glibc at least. Compare with GvR: Guido is involved day-to-day, talks to people, makes decisions. No one questions whether he has power, because he uses it , although they certainly question the way he uses it. I think the monarchy of the United Kingdom is good…

I have a hard time imagining the monarch insisting on a joke. Not just Queen Elizabeth, but any hereditary monarch from the modern age. Monarchs retain authority because they're good at politics... RMS, not so much. That's not to say his political positions are wrong, just that the man is impolitic at times. Monarchs exert soft power pretty much constantly, with public appearances, knighthoods, and recognition of gre…

> Monarchs [...] often end up as the most popular political figures of their republics.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I think there's something wrong with that statement :p

Re: Who controls glibc?

#435

Post by oblio »

mikekchar wrote: post #409
labster wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hard time imagining the monarch insisting on a joke. Not just Queen Elizabeth, but any hereditary monarch from the modern age. Monarchs retain authority because they're good at politics... RMS, not so much. That's not to say his political positions are wrong, just that the man is impolitic at times. Monarchs exert soft power pretty much constantly, with public appearances, knighthoods, and recognition of gre…

Case in point: In Japan Prime Minister Abe wanted to change the constitution to allow Japan to engage in external conflicts if allies were in danger. The emperor of Japan suddenly said, "I'm old, you know. I think I want to retire, but there is no constitutional law that will allow me to abdicate. Please write this law ASAP". Prime Minister Abe does not have resources to do both constitutional changes at the same tim…

I guess they learned from the last few times when military juntas took control of Japan and burned everything to the ground, in the end.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#436

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

alex_hitchins wrote: post #402
djsumdog wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Immediate future prediction: -4 on this comment Commenting on downvotes is discouraged in the HN guidelines. It's boring, it's trite and this isn't Reddit/Voat.

It is discouraged yes, but also it's human nature to want to understand why ones opinion isn't popular. I have seen previously my own posts be downvoted with no comments given and no clear idea of what I was doing to displease the hive mind.

I've come to accept the occasional downvote as noise in the process.

It's probably not healthy to take them seriously.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#437

Post by geezerjay »

shub wrote: post #310
llukas wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is business justification of joke in documentation then maintainer has no authority to say no. RMS is a CEO and he ultimately controls the project goals. If you think otherwise you fork.

Is there really a clear line of authority between the glibc maintainers and RMS? It certainly doesn't seem like it. Authority decays, and RMS's is gone, over glibc at least. Compare with GvR: Guido is involved day-to-day, talks to people, makes decisions. No one questions whether he has power, because he uses it , although they certainly question the way he uses it. I think the monarchy of the United Kingdom is good…

> Is there really a clear line of authority between the glibc maintainers and RMS?

Obviously, yes. RMS is currently the president of the FSF and glibc is a FSF project, created and directed and maintained and funded by the FSF.

Just because some developer parachutes into a project that doesn't mean the project owners lose their rights over the project, or that the developer becomes the new owner.

If you want to contribute to a project, you do so by respecting and complying with the wishes of those directing the policy. The FSF started the glibc project and manages glibc's development and establishes the policies followed by the glibc project. It's the FSF, and not any random developer who just so happena to have commit access to a repository.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#438

Post by josefx »

zeth___ wrote: post #48
MBCook wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the really odd thing in this situation. The maintainers all seem to want to remove it, and the project governance says the maintainers are supposed to decide based on the quorum. RMS just over ruled that. Because it was his joke and he felt like it. Which seems like it goes against the whole “community“ thing.

If you read the waiver you have to sign before contributing anything to the fsf you surrender all your copyrights to them. This is so they can keep moving software into newer GPL versions. The maintainers are just mechanics working on someone else's car and have as much say in choosing the interior decor. The beauty of the system is that if they get sick of that state of affairs they get an identical copy of the car…

>This is so they can keep moving software into newer GPL versions.

That is already an optional part of the GPL itself afaik.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#439

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

__s wrote: post #151
roenxi wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technical documentation isn't the place for a joke full stop. Documentation is for people who are typically busy, uncertain and potentially dealing with something that is going wrong. They want clear, concise and accessible help. They don't want or need tasteless jokes. It is disrespectful to their time to include random garbage. This is supposed to be read by people who need it, not people who know what is going on…

Yeah, Python docs need to stop using variable names like 'spam' & 'eggs', Monty Python's too jokey, no room for it in docs

They're probably just trying to give wide berth of the world's most dangerous joke.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#440

Post by matheusmoreira »

irishsultan wrote: post #426
matheusmoreira wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This directly contradicts other CoC enforcement cases: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 >publicly calling trans people out for "not accepting reality" on Twitter. >His Twitter profile mentions that he is a core contributor to opal. >Is this what the other maintainers want to be reflected in the project? >Will any transgender developers feel comfortable contributing? There is no reason to believe these people a…

That's a different CoC though.

Is it?

https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/942

The author of the issue suggests the adoption of a certain Contributor Covenant. Here is the latest version of the text:

https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-con...

And here is the Node.js CoC:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nodejs/admin/master/CODE_O...

Here is the diff:

https://www.diffchecker.com/2Lj88IT6

The only substantial difference is located on the very first paragraph:

- education, socio-economic status

+ race

It is clearly the same CoC.

Nowhere in that text does it say that Twitter is some kind of private space where you can freely express unpopular opinions without consequences to your good standing as a contributor to software projects. The scope section actually says this:

>This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.

>Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event.

As evidenced by the Opal issue I cited, the mere mention of a project on your Twitter profile causes people to assume it is an "official social media account" and therefore subject to the CoC.

>His Twitter profile mentions that he is a core contributor to opal.

>Is this what the other maintainers want to be reflected in the project?

So why were there no consequences following this report?

https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/324

The Twitter in question clearly is associated with Node.js:

https://twitter.com/ag_dubs

>@nodejs director. former @npmjs.

These facts were enough for me to form my opinion about CoCs and their enforcement.

Post reply on HN