41–50 of 289 posts
I prefer the Jimmy Wales version of authority. The project operates democratically, but Jimmy always retains the ultimate authority to act as a sovereign at the end of the day because he built it, has the reputation of the project to protect, and it's his legacy. The option to fork the project will always be there if the people want new leadership.
This seems to be a repeating theme lately. NixOS went through something incredibly similar lately.
I miss that information, have you a link to share ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm an outsider who only knows Guido van Rossum by way of interviews his writing. Assuming your quote is what the original text said (I don't disbelieve you-- but nobody can see it to confirm) why would this have violated community standards? Is there some rule about not mentioning "un-persons" or something? It's very confusing. Edit: Answering my own question. There appears to be a kerfuffle afoot. Apparently the St…
What the hell, has everyone caught and gone gung-ho on censorship? What the actual f*** is this? How in the hell do you have the balls or ovaries to ban the creator --for something so inane. It's like a highscool supe who gets no respect and will at every chance show you the little power she has in such a classless way. So utterly petty defying belief. I hope those dweebs get voted out pronto. That's an absurd abuse…
Probably has something to do with the codified formal structures necessary for various committees/ decision making groups.
But it's interesting. This kind of stuff happens in ECMA, Rust, Python and a few others. Go seems to have escaped. Maybe because it's a corporate owned Lang? Similarly no drama in the Typescript world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm an outsider who only knows Guido van Rossum by way of interviews his writing. Assuming your quote is what the original text said (I don't disbelieve you-- but nobody can see it to confirm) why would this have violated community standards? Is there some rule about not mentioning "un-persons" or something? It's very confusing. Edit: Answering my own question. There appears to be a kerfuffle afoot. Apparently the St…
What the hell, has everyone caught and gone gung-ho on censorship? What the actual f*** is this? How in the hell do you have the balls or ovaries to ban the creator --for something so inane. It's like a highscool supe who gets no respect and will at every chance show you the little power she has in such a classless way. So utterly petty defying belief. I hope those dweebs get voted out pronto. That's an absurd abuse…
[flagged]
RCV, in the most common form of IRV, has a problem that I think is relevant.
If we accept the truism that the appropriate compromise won't be anyone's first choice, then the very first thing IRV does is throw out any appropriate compromise, leaving it to make a decision between inappropriate options.
I think we need to be more able to pick a compromise, not less.
I prefer the Jimmy Wales version of authority. The project operates democratically, but Jimmy always retains the ultimate authority to act as a sovereign at the end of the day because he built it, has the reputation of the project to protect, and it's his legacy. The option to fork the project will always be there if the people want new leadership.
Guido did that for a long time, but I think he reached a point where he wanted to transition.
The benefits of a sovereign are that they limit the amount of privileges that can be extracted from an political system. Obviously monarchs have their downsides, but if people can just up and fork the project, those downsides are limited.
These are not "Python community guidelines". These are the guidelines of a tyrannical clique who have grabbed power and control the access to the infrastructure. They abuse their power by banning any opposition and then using said infrastructure to libel and defame their opponents. Google already fired one or two of them. I do not know what is required to restore the health of Python.