Python gets a new governance model • Hacker News Board

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#31

Post by claudiawerner » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 1:27 PM UTC

blfr wrote: post #24

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…

Smells of "real communism hasn't been tried." I quite like the Swiss model of democracy. Taleb argues that the focus on small matters and diffused democracy avoids centralization of power and provides a lot of their famous stability.

It's important to analyze arguments not by what they seem to be but by what they actually are; the substance of what he's saying isn't that the USSR (for example) "wasn't real Communism" because it wasn't bureaucratic enough, his position is that regardless of whether it is "real Communism" or isn't, bureaucracy is still a question of central importance. The notion of discussing "utopia" in relation to its actual existing aspects is covered quite well by Marcuse[0].

On the other hand, several Communists (in fact, the ones Zizek is arguing against) very much argue for exactly what you propose: focus on small matters and diffused democracy to avoid centralisation of power. The fact of "real Communism" having been or not having been "tried" is irrelevant to the questions concerning how such a society, if it is possible, ought to be organised. Thought-terminating cliches don't make for critical analysis.

[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcuse/#FanUtoRatGra

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#32

Post by SolaceQuantum » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 1:30 PM UTC

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.

I believe a concern would be a single point of failure and burnout, the consequences of which would be massive losses of organizational, directional, and domain knowledge.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#33

Post by AstralStorm » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 1:30 PM UTC

blfr wrote: post #24

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…

Smells of "real communism hasn't been tried." I quite like the Swiss model of democracy. Taleb argues that the focus on small matters and diffused democracy avoids centralization of power and provides a lot of their famous stability.

Indeed, but they do have policies, high level approaches and big decisions too.

The problem with this kind of direct democracy is the same as with all diplomacy - astroturfing, focus groups, demagoguery and unintended consequences.

Focus groups make diffuse votes matter less despite being more prevalent. (Overwhelming majority in some cases.) Astroturfing is a kind of diffuse bribery. Unintended consequences is most often when people are presented with a package deal and do not dig deeply enough to figure out results. Finally demagoguery is usually by presenting a palatable but highly inferior option or by going for short term bandaid solutions.

The latter two are less relevant to a programming language project.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#34

Post by AstralStorm » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 1:32 PM UTC

AstralStorm wrote: post #22

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…

Uhmm, it is self organizing as well as transparent. This is why the rule for changing governance rules (including itself) is simple and transparent. To keep relative stability, it has a built in buy in threshold. There is a difference and fine line between freedom of choice and being overwhelmed by options, especially irrelevant ones, even more so if all competitors are essentially fake and owned by the same company.…

Why the downvote? It is not like the organization form was thrown onto the project by an external force?

Or does self organizing mean something different from what it says?

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#35

Post by losvedir » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 1:37 PM UTC

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 question is if the explicit ones replace the implicit ones or are in addition to them.

I don't know python well, so this all might work very well for them. But if, for instance, there was a very core developer or two, then no amount of structure will take away from their sway. If a major point of contention arose between the "paper" structure and the core developers, there will be a problem.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#36

Post by threatofrain » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 1:38 PM UTC

cousin_it wrote: post #19

nabla9 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how societies work. Informal organizatios are not transparent.

The grandparent comment wasn't about formal replacing informal, it was about bureaucracy replacing dictatorship. I don't think that's always a good thing. If the organization has some urgent goal, like winning a war or putting a man on the Moon, some dictatorship is needed to keep bureaucracy in check. But when there's no more urgent goal than well-being of the organization's members, that's when dictatorship fades a…

All dictatorships have bureaucracies; are they going to rule alone? The question is whether those power structures are visible and explicitly negotiable.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#37

Post by AstralStorm » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 1:39 PM UTC

onlydeadheroes wrote: post #16

If it is anything like the Linux kernel, it is to prepare for the incoming purge of non-corporate-approved contributors...

Linux has never purged any of those. It is more like it got "conquered" by money and resources allocating developer time. For that matter, so will any truly important and developed FOSS.

Not sure what do you expect, Mozilla model with an NGO, who can still be pushed by competition and wealth into irrelevancy?

Ask about RedHat and their push for dominance in both init system, package management, GUI and audio server, conquering even Debian and Arch in the end, making Gentoo less relevant, making BSD compatibility hard. Countered only somewhat by Android and its practices, Google's money and software market.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#38

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 1:40 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #28

cousin_it wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grandparent comment wasn't about formal replacing informal, it was about bureaucracy replacing dictatorship. I don't think that's always a good thing. If the organization has some urgent goal, like winning a war or putting a man on the Moon, some dictatorship is needed to keep bureaucracy in check. But when there's no more urgent goal than well-being of the organization's members, that's when dictatorship fades a…

Is this really true? Does this work in every kind of war or Moon-race? Control is important, but so is individual initiative. The front line needs the latter the HQ needs the former. That's why "aligning goals" is the important thing, not just rules for power's sake. (That's authorianism of course.)

[deleted]

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#39

Post by kibwen » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 1:40 PM UTC

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.

BDFLs only work when they're the founder of the language, or a well-respected community member who is explicitly appointed by the prior BDFL. Without a clear line of succession, you get all the same destructive infighting and power struggles that real-world dictatorships experience.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#40

Post by blfr » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 1:41 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #31

blfr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smells of "real communism hasn't been tried." I quite like the Swiss model of democracy. Taleb argues that the focus on small matters and diffused democracy avoids centralization of power and provides a lot of their famous stability.

It's important to analyze arguments not by what they seem to be but by what they actually are; the substance of what he's saying isn't that the USSR (for example) "wasn't real Communism" because it wasn't bureaucratic enough, his position is that regardless of whether it is "real Communism" or isn't, bureaucracy is still a question of central importance. The notion of discussing "utopia" in relation to its actual exi…

Theoretical arguments are incredibly overrated for complex systems. Usually, they're just ways for academics to signal their ability to make these arguments, to show off how smart they are, and of little utility otherwise.

You need to see how things actually work out in practice. And in practice Swiss democracy works very well whereas most central bureaucracies are soul killers.