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

131–140 of 191 posts

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#131

Post by pasabagi »

airstrike wrote: post #126

I find it fascinating that programmers like to discuss governance at such great lengths without any reference to the vast knowledge of Political Theory that lies at their fingertips. At the end of the day, I suppose this is simply yet another form of NIH

It's a fundamentally different problem. There are extremely limited commonalities between an opt-in group based on a technical project, and a society. I think people actually illegitimately apply all sorts of concepts from mass politics to small working groups, without paying attention to the actual reason why these concepts are necessary in society, and what problems they exist to solve.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#132

Post by throwawaymath »

iosonofuturista wrote: post #90
krn wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it does speak to potential limitations of the model The parent compared a group of volunteers with the largest open-source company in the world, which is a part S&P 500. No other Linux distribution has a comparable amount of resources. Even Canonical is following the RedHat's lead (systemd, Wayland, PulseAudio).

So by your logic, Microsoft and Apple make better OSes than Linux by several orders of magnitude.

In terms of out of the box stability and support? Yes, absolutely.

The power and flexibility of Linux comes with the cost of a much lower floor for stability than proprietary operating systems. You can make a rock solid system using Linux, but that requires nontrivial effort and knowledge. I have yet to see an issue on my personal Windows and macOS machines that approached e.g. package management hell on Linux, in terms of complexity and frustration.

For examples of what open source projects look like when they have the backing and resources of large companies, look at LLVM versus GCC, BoringSSL versus OpenSSL and CentOS versus Ubuntu. "Better" would be too broad a description, but if you qualify it to the narrow scope of stability, then yeah I think proprietary resources generally come out ahead. I also don't think that is a controversial observation.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#133

Post by contravariant »

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.

That seems optimistic. Especially since bureaucracy and corruption have coexisted in various scenarios.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#134

Post by mixmastamyk »

kibwen wrote: post #83
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm under the impression that well-described, transparent decision making process has the consequence of increasing cognitive load when it comes to participating in decision making. Given that decision-making in large projects like this is already a significant cognitive load, adding on "did I make the decision following pre-defined process goals" does increase difficulty. Whether or not the tradeoffs are worth it is…

Correct that it involves tradeoffs, though having no process at all for making decisions leads to at worst a free-for-all (which can work for small or non-critical projects, but even so be prepared for inevitable drama), or at best an opaque and implicit process as others here have warned about. To use a HN-friendly analogy, it's like static typing vs dynamic typing: you can either accept pain up-front to avoid pain…

Are your former/latter backwards?

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#135

Post by mixmastamyk »

simias wrote: post #89
kibwen wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unfortunately I think it's curious that commenters (this is not aimed at you specifically) don't dare to even indirectly praise bureaucracy without couching it with words like "unfortunately", because there's nothing unfortunate about having a well-described and transparent decision-making process. Python has had bureaucracy for decades, e.g. the entire PEP process, so it's too late for us to be wringing our hands…

I consider it unfortunate because I think we've all been frustrated by "due process" and having to wait or do seemingly useless tasks when the way to go appears obvious. Being able to say "let's do this" and start hacking right away sounds a lot more fun than "let's submit an RFC and wait for one month for people to comment, then we'll vote and if people accept the proposal we'll implement the unit tests, do the code…

Would be interesting if there could be a bureaucratic process for controversial issues, but also a "fast track" for easy wins.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#136

Post by wildmusings »

It's incredible how infectious the democracy meme is. It makes most sense when determining how violence will be used within a society (i.e. the fundamental function of government). It makes a lot less sense for running projects and organizations that people are free to come and go from. But the idea's intellectual stranglehold is just too strong to resist.

The merits of singular vision, unity of design, counter-majoritarian good judgment, predictability, and decisiveness should really get more credit in these contexts. As should the downsides of bureaucracy and democratic decision making: infighting, politics (the sacrifice of sincerity for popularity), gridlock, disunity of design, etc.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#137

Post by PhasmaFelis »

forgottenpass wrote: post #75
stoicjett2 wrote: post #21

This comment section is proof positive of why the Steering Committee was a good choice.

" to is proof that is good" is among the worst arguments in the world. It applies equally well to any non-unanimous change, therefore it means nothing.

Ugh, yes. "Everyone thinks I'm wrong, which proves that I'm right!" has been a thing since Usenet at least, and it didn't make sense then either.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#138

Post by goto11 »

airstrike wrote: post #126

I find it fascinating that programmers like to discuss governance at such great lengths without any reference to the vast knowledge of Political Theory that lies at their fingertips. At the end of the day, I suppose this is simply yet another form of NIH

What ideas from political theory do you think have been overlooked but could be useful in this context?

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#139

Post by krn »

hangonhn wrote: post #120
krn wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it does speak to potential limitations of the model The parent compared a group of volunteers with the largest open-source company in the world, which is a part S&P 500. No other Linux distribution has a comparable amount of resources. Even Canonical is following the RedHat's lead (systemd, Wayland, PulseAudio).

The way I understood the parent is that the Debian model didn't actually solve the problem it was suggested as a solution for. It merely offloaded the problem to someone else. In other words, it has a dependency and therefore is not a complete solution. That's how I understood it.

> It merely offloaded the problem to someone else. In other words, it has a dependency and therefore is not a complete solution.

Debian isn't more dependent on RedHat than any other Linux distribution is. It has nothing to do with the governance model, but rather with the fact, that multiple open-source solutions created by RedHat employees and firstly released in Fedora have won as currently the best.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#140

Post by jaibot »

airstrike wrote: post #126

I find it fascinating that programmers like to discuss governance at such great lengths without any reference to the vast knowledge of Political Theory that lies at their fingertips. At the end of the day, I suppose this is simply yet another form of NIH

They settled on Condorcet, a method almost unheard of outside of electoral/political theory, and your criticism is that they didn't make use of political theory?!
Post reply on HN