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

171–180 of 191 posts

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#171

Post by msla »

throwawaymath wrote: post #132
iosonofuturista wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 te…

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

Support, maybe, if you equate support to "You bought a corporate license so you're entitled to talk to a human being with something more than a script and a mandate to act as a meat-shield."

Stability? That's a term with two different definitions: Doesn't crash, and stays the same over time, with no "breaking changes" even to the UI. Windows... kinda got better at the first, over time, and actively isn't interested in the second, given how much change its UIs have gone through. Remember how Windows 95 worked and acted? Want to replicate that on Windows 10? Remember COMMAND.COM? Is PowerShell a drop-in replacement? I'm not saying COMMAND.COM is better, I'm just saying your old batch files won't run if you only have PowerShell, innit? Ditto COM versus .Net versus... whatever they'll have in five years.

Meanwhile, I've been running WindowMaker on Linux with zsh for over a decade now.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#172

Post by johannes1234321 »

chaosite wrote: post #88
ecshafer wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think as far as successful languages go, the truth is the opposite. Languages with large design by committee teams are most successful. C++, Java, C, JavaScript or even going back to Cobol and Fortran. The languages with the most use are not typically designed by one person.

I mean, eventually a committee takes over, sure. But C++ is Stroustrup, Java is Gosling, C is K&R, JavaScript is Eich. Most successful languages kept their internal consistency by being designed by a single person. Historically, these single persons also had mustaches. Yes, eventually all of those graduated to a design-by-committee approach, but that happened much later. But yes, in that sense, Python is just followi…

Java's predecessor Oak was created by 13 guys (among them Patrick Naughton, Mike Sheridan, James Gosling and Bill Joy) over 18 months a different then relatively quickly grew to a larger team. (While that project didn't include the language spec itself only, but also runtime and library)

C++ wasn't designed by Stroustrup alone. It's based on C's design.

Sure sometimes you have cleared leaders (see also Perl/Larry Wall) but having a larger group has benefits to see more edge cases (with the risk of committee issues)

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#174

Post by qwerty456127 »

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?

At least I hope they will give the obscure old-fashioned communication model (mailing lists, Usenet newsgroups, yet another bug tracker for everybody to register at (which doesn't even work right now - it's Error #502)) up and embrace GitHub issues and pull requests system like Rust and C# teams do.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#176

Post by airstrike »

jaibot wrote: post #140
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?!

That defines the voting system, but not governance and representation

It's also almost exclusively used by other software foundations like the Debian SF so if anything this just proves my point that programmers by and large are not equipped and do not invest time to become equipped for discussing governance.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#177

Post by AlexCoventry »

chrisseaton wrote: post #20
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.

I think a new BFDL would be a worse-is-better solution than all this play-government formality, to be honest. It seems to be an effective system for many languages, including Python in the past.

Tim Peters for BDFL!!

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#178

Post by _emacsomancer_ »

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.

Except my understanding is that the amount of manpower involved in the Linux kernel is greater than that involved in the Windows kernel. (Does Apple do kernel development at all?)

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#179

Post by jacques_chester »

pasabagi wrote: post #131
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.

> There are extremely limited commonalities between an opt-in group based on a technical project, and a society.

The theory of clubs and voluntary associations is well-studied in economics, law, political science, sociology, organisational theory ...

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#180

Post by jacques_chester »

photojosh wrote: post #170
teddyh wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

— What does it mean to be king? — You will be the land, and the land will be you. If you fail, the land will perish. As you thrive, the land will blossom. — But why? — Because you are king! King Arthur and Merlin, Excalibur (1981) This, concisely, is the problem with kings.

Reminded me of the Israelites asking for a king: Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others…

It's true, but a little dated. After all: where do I sign for the flat 10% tax rate, O Lord?
Post reply on HN