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

51–60 of 191 posts

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#51

Post by oblio »

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.)

Every military in the world is hierarchical and the best armies gave people lower in the hierarchy a bit of freedom so that they could improvise. They also educated almost every rank to be able to handle the duties of their immediate superior in case they needed to take that position quickly.

Basically control > individual initiative but control + individual initiative >>> absolute control (see Stalinism).

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#52

Post by sytelus »

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?

How Python would have looked like if it was designed by a committee? Something to reflect on...

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#53

Post by blfr »

AstralStorm wrote: post #45
blfr wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The trouble is, their system mostly works because of culture, not because it is truly any better. A certain high level of egalitarianism, responsibility for decisions and push back against exploitative or manipulative practices is required for success. This makes transplanting their practices hard. In case you do not know, Swiss have a central bureaucracy. Not everything, heck most things are not decided by direct vo…

Obviously, the environment matters. It's not just culture but geography, history, genetics. It's much easier to run a free country when you're surrounded by oceans (like the US) or mountains (like Switzerland) than when you're surrounded by potential conquerors.

But that is also true of bureaucracies. Honesty, attention to details, voluntary respect for rules make bureaucratic systems semi-liveable and not a hellish kleptocracy.

Every idea suffers from implementation problems. Not every idea is worth implementing though.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#54

Post by AstralStorm »

krn wrote: post #44

In my opinion, Debian has the best open-source governance model out of all the projects without a BFDL. Because it basically emulates it by appointing a single person to be responsible for the entire vision, yet making him still accountable to others[1]. Thus the horror of the "design by committee"[2] is avoided. [1] https://www.debian.org/devel/leader [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee

And yet they take in many of RedHat solutions and decisions... mostly due to lack of manpower for the alternatives I suppose.

Design by committee is avoided by using designs of someone else.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#55

Post by rthomas6 »

lourenchord wrote: post #17
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?

can't you just fork it, if it becomes too shitty ?

Yes, but the real strength of Python (as with most popular languages) comes from its community. The reason why I end up using it so much is because somebody already made a good library that does what I want, and because it's much easier (for me) to tell what the hell is going on in other peoples' code compared to JavaScript.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#56

Post by kibwen »

simias wrote: post #41
chrisseaton wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A good benevolent dictator is often more efficient than a more decentralized and democratic system but you have a single point of failure and you need to be able to find said dictator in the first place. A bad or incompetent not-so-benevolent dictator can be absolutely terrible for a project and cause a lot of long-term damage. For such an important project unfortunately I think a certain amount of bureaucracy and pa…

> 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 about tainting the Python project with the bogeyman of government.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#57

Post by doublepg23 »

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…

Never thought I'd see Zizek in a HN thread on Python... Great points from him though.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#58

Post by sytelus »

simias wrote: post #41
chrisseaton wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A good benevolent dictator is often more efficient than a more decentralized and democratic system but you have a single point of failure and you need to be able to find said dictator in the first place. A bad or incompetent not-so-benevolent dictator can be absolutely terrible for a project and cause a lot of long-term damage. For such an important project unfortunately I think a certain amount of bureaucracy and pa…

Unlike other software projects, language design requires a single mind to think holistically, break things when needed, avoid feature creep while at the same time keep doors open for new ideas. It’svery intricate balance. Once language doesn’t have one leader, it will likely die in long term. I would call it death by committee:).

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#59

Post by onlydeadheroes »

AstralStorm wrote: post #37
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,…

Theo Tso fought against the backdooring of /dev/random by the NSA. That this backdooring was attempted was confirmed by Snowden leaks.

New York times:

"By this year, the Sigint Enabling Project had found ways inside some of the encryption chips that scramble information for businesses and governments, either by working with chipmakers to insert back doors or by exploiting security flaws, according to the documents."

Later when the code of conduct was added to the Linux project, Theo Tso was attacked with bullshit accusations on the first day...

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#60

Post by kibwen »

AstralStorm wrote: post #54
krn wrote: post #44

In my opinion, Debian has the best open-source governance model out of all the projects without a BFDL. Because it basically emulates it by appointing a single person to be responsible for the entire vision, yet making him still accountable to others[1]. Thus the horror of the "design by committee"[2] is avoided. [1] https://www.debian.org/devel/leader [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee

And yet they take in many of RedHat solutions and decisions... mostly due to lack of manpower for the alternatives I suppose. Design by committee is avoided by using designs of someone else.

Every design either comes from one person, or it comes from a committee. A project like Python has long since scaled far beyond the capability of one person to feasibly design. The same is true of any other major (or minor) programming language. Vague anxiety about design-by-committee is always in vogue, but it doesn't do us any good.
Post reply on HN