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

Python gets a new governance model

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 191 posts

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#101

Post by C1sc0cat »

kibwen wrote: post #76
cyphar wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Play-democracy is a well-known problem in a lot of projects. OpenSolaris had the same issue, and it had some pretty disastrous consequences (though they modelled themselves after Apache which isn't really the best model). Honestly, I think it comes down to the fact that democracy is definitely sexy. The idea that any individual could gain the power they want through based on public recognition, where the public has a…

I suspect you're being downvoted because these models don't particularly resemble democracy, which would presumably involve having the users of the software vote, rather than the developers of the software.

Even Athenian Democracy (which had a restricted electorate) didn't have every one vote on every thing.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#102

Post by klenwell »

jetrink wrote: post #18
chrisseaton wrote: post #6

Councils, committees, multiple obtuse voting systems, governance documents, 'courts' of appeal... Why are they so keen to construct such a grim bureaucracy for themselves?

The alternative to explicit rules, hierarchies and power structures usually isn't harmonious self-organization; it is unspoken rules, implicit hierarchies and hidden power structures.

The other way I've heard this expressed:

The opposite of bureaucracy isn't efficiency. It's corruption.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#103

Post by xamuel »

claudiawerner wrote: post #9
chrisseaton wrote: post #6

Councils, committees, multiple obtuse voting systems, governance documents, 'courts' of appeal... Why are they so keen to construct such a grim bureaucracy for themselves?

Zizek is famous for pursuing a line very much against the grain; people intellectually similar to him argue for a society organised informally and locally, like a commune - but he argues that he'd rather be living in a bureaucracy in which he doesn't have to worry about all the smallest decisions and direct democracy. To him, the trouble of the USSR wasn't all the bureaucracy, it was that it wasn't bureaucratic enoug…

Zizek isn't a philosopher, he's an entertainer disguised as a philosopher. His entire schtick is: take something common sense, declare the opposite is true, and do so in a profound-sounding way with lots of eccentric gesturing and lisping.

Chomsky on Zizek [1]: Posturing. There's no theory in any of this stuff. Try to find in all [Zizek's work] some principles from which you can deduce...empirically testable propositions...beyond the level of something you can explain in 5 minutes to a 12-year old.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#104

Post by chrisseaton »

klenwell wrote: post #102
jetrink wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative to explicit rules, hierarchies and power structures usually isn't harmonious self-organization; it is unspoken rules, implicit hierarchies and hidden power structures.

The other way I've heard this expressed: The opposite of bureaucracy isn't efficiency. It's corruption.

Ruby has absolutely no process - not even an equivalent of PEPs. What corruption do you think there is there?

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#105

Post by detaro »

chrisseaton wrote: post #104
klenwell wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other way I've heard this expressed: The opposite of bureaucracy isn't efficiency. It's corruption.

Ruby has absolutely no process - not even an equivalent of PEPs. What corruption do you think there is there?

Not no process, since Matz is effectively BDFL, isn't he?

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#106

Post by kibwen »

cyphar wrote: post #82
kibwen wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect you're being downvoted because these models don't particularly resemble democracy, which would presumably involve having the users of the software vote, rather than the developers of the software.

In Westminster-style democracies, party members elect their party's leader (the general public don't get to decide who the leader of a particular party is). In America, you can only vote in primaries (that is, choose presidential and other candidates) if you are a registered voter of that party -- which means that it's also restricted to a subset of the public. So I'm not sure I agree it is a mismatch to most democra…

I'd say this looks to be conflating "voting" with democracy-in-spirit. The OP mentions that about 90 people participated in this vote, which is less than a slim fraction of Python's hundreds of thousands of users. This isn't analogous to a representative democracy, because that would imply some sort of election to appoint the "representatives", which wasn't the case.

I'm not particularly interested in arguing about what democracy "is" (we'll be here all day, and then some), but I think it's clear that this model is what democracy "isn't". And I'm not saying that's a bad thing (certainly different styles of governance are suitable for different contexts).

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#107

Post by chrisseaton »

detaro wrote: post #105
chrisseaton wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ruby has absolutely no process - not even an equivalent of PEPs. What corruption do you think there is there?

Not no process, since Matz is effectively BDFL, isn't he?

That’s the abscence of process. No votes, no committees, no grown people pretending they’re a court of appeal.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#108

Post by haberman »

xamuel wrote: post #103
claudiawerner wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zizek is famous for pursuing a line very much against the grain; people intellectually similar to him argue for a society organised informally and locally, like a commune - but he argues that he'd rather be living in a bureaucracy in which he doesn't have to worry about all the smallest decisions and direct democracy. To him, the trouble of the USSR wasn't all the bureaucracy, it was that it wasn't bureaucratic enoug…

Zizek isn't a philosopher, he's an entertainer disguised as a philosopher. His entire schtick is: take something common sense, declare the opposite is true, and do so in a profound-sounding way with lots of eccentric gesturing and lisping. Chomsky on Zizek [1]: Posturing. There's no theory in any of this stuff. Try to find in all [Zizek's work] some principles from which you can deduce...empirically testable proposit…

There's also the fact that he's impressively blind to abuses of power committed by his friends. Doesn't inspire confidence in his ability to see things clearly.

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/why-did-i-sign-the-letter-...

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-brief-post-script-on-the...

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#109

Post by cyphar »

kibwen wrote: post #106
cyphar wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Westminster-style democracies, party members elect their party's leader (the general public don't get to decide who the leader of a particular party is). In America, you can only vote in primaries (that is, choose presidential and other candidates) if you are a registered voter of that party -- which means that it's also restricted to a subset of the public. So I'm not sure I agree it is a mismatch to most democra…

I'd say this looks to be conflating "voting" with democracy-in-spirit. The OP mentions that about 90 people participated in this vote, which is less than a slim fraction of Python's hundreds of thousands of users. This isn't analogous to a representative democracy, because that would imply some sort of election to appoint the "representatives", which wasn't the case. I'm not particularly interested in arguing about w…

I would argue that the people most impacted by the steering committee's decisions would be the core team -- who are the people that voted, and thus the steering committee model represents the will of the core team.

Obviously users will be impacted, but in such a tangential way that I would argue that it'd be more like how other countries are impacted by the decisions of a democratic country's leadership (and you wouldn't argue that Canadians should have the right to vote in American presidential elections). Just like the Linux CoC, I don't understand why people who don't contribute to the project should be involved in how the project's development is run.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#110

Post by [deleted] »

claudiawerner wrote: post #9
chrisseaton wrote: post #6

Councils, committees, multiple obtuse voting systems, governance documents, 'courts' of appeal... Why are they so keen to construct such a grim bureaucracy for themselves?

Zizek is famous for pursuing a line very much against the grain; people intellectually similar to him argue for a society organised informally and locally, like a commune - but he argues that he'd rather be living in a bureaucracy in which he doesn't have to worry about all the smallest decisions and direct democracy. To him, the trouble of the USSR wasn't all the bureaucracy, it was that it wasn't bureaucratic enoug…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN