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

61–70 of 191 posts

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#61

Post by simonh »

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.

And RedHat takes projecys ftom upstreams they don’t contribute to and bundle them in their systems. Sorry, but this is a particularly mean spirited attitude. The open source model has always been to share your work On one hand and selectively use others work yourself where it makes sense. That’s what opens source is for. It’s what it means. BSD is free to commit their resources to those areas where they feel they can offer value or meaningful differentiation, and they do so.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#62

Post by ThePhysicist »

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.

I think there's nothing wrong with re-using good solutions that others have worked out instead of building your own just for the sake of being different. That's the open-source idea even, no? Freely reuse and build upon the work of others, so that we don't have to reinvent things again and again.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#63

Post by pas »

cousin_it wrote: post #46
pas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Individual initiative is maximized when people have sole responsibility for their tasks, not when every decision needs to be approved by ten committees. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/03/19/two-stories/

But who sets the goal? What's Python's goal? Etc.

Maybe it can be as simple as a benevolent-dictator election. Or it can be as complex as direct democracy (voting on PEPs) - but then who can vote becomes the issue, etc.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#64

Post by dooglius »

onlydeadheroes wrote: post #59
AstralStorm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."…

Not that I disagree with your point, but the Snowden leaks only confirmed that the NSA does backdooring in general, not that the Intel rdrand instruction in particular was backdoored.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#66

Post by kibwen »

sytelus wrote: post #58
simias wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:).

This is unfounded in practice. Having a BDFL did little to stop Python's feature set from growing, or to prevent design flaws like `lambda`, or to make Python 3 anything other than the poster child for how not to break things. Conversely, we can look to Javascript (yes, Javascript!) as an example of a language that was a total mess after being designed by a single person and that got immeasurably better once it began being designed by committee (yes yes, "ten days" and all that, but I daresay that even Eich would agree with me that the Javascript committee has done a relatively fantastic job).

The reality is that languages are born with a single creator, and spend their adolescence growing under that creator's care, but achieve maturity once they can demonstrate that they can function without such a single point of failure as a BDFL.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#67

Post by scott_s »

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.

Agreed. There's a famous essay from the feminism movement about this: "The Tyranny of Structurelessness", https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

It has been discussed on HN multiple times: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=THE%20TYRANNY%20of%20STRUCTURE...

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#68

Post by ecshafer »

sytelus wrote: post #58
simias wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:).

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.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#69

Post by scott_s »

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?

Take out the word "grim", and I would say because that's how large groups of humans have figured out how to civilly work together over the long term.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#70

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #62
AstralStorm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think there's nothing wrong with re-using good solutions that others have worked out instead of building your own just for the sake of being different. That's the open-source idea even, no? Freely reuse and build upon the work of others, so that we don't have to reinvent things again and again.

And yet open source is constantly reinventing the same things over and over again anyway.

I think parent's complaint is that Debian's model has failed to produce good solutions of its own, and while that isn't necessarily a requirement, it does speak to potential limitations of the model

Post reply on HN