Python gets a new governance model • Hacker News Board

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#71

Post by xg15 » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 2:35 PM UTC

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 disagree that such languages will die, but they might become designless frankensteins that draw their life energy from sources best left unexplored (see: Java, HTML)

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#72

Post by cousin_it » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 2:36 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #63

cousin_it wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why election? If you create an organization to pursue some goal, you're the dictator.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#73

Post by SolaceQuantum » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 2:37 PM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #56

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…

> 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…

I'm under the impression that well-described, transparent decision making process has the consequence of increasing cognitive load when it comes to participating in decision making. Given that decision-making in large projects like this is already a significant cognitive load, adding on "did I make the decision following pre-defined process goals" does increase difficulty. Whether or not the tradeoffs are worth it is another decision.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#74

Post by xg15 » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

It's curious that there was so much discussion about how to vote, while there seemed to be no question who would vote. The article mentions there was a pool of 94 eligible individuals but doesn't explain further where they come from. Does anyone have more info about that?

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#75

Post by forgottenpass » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

stoicjett2 wrote: post #21

This comment section is proof positive of why the Steering Committee was a good choice.

" to is proof that is good" is among the worst arguments in the world.

It applies equally well to any non-unanimous change, therefore it means nothing.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#76

Post by kibwen » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 2:40 PM UTC

cyphar wrote: post #42

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?

Play-democracy is a well-known problem in a lot of projects. OpenSolaris had the same issue, and it had some pretty disastrous consequences (though they modelled themselves after Apache which isn't really the best model). Honestly, I think it comes down to the fact that democracy is definitely sexy. The idea that any individual could gain the power they want through based on public recognition, where the public has a…

I suspect you're being downvoted because these models don't particularly resemble democracy, which would presumably involve having the users of the software vote, rather than the developers of the software.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#77

Post by m23khan » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 2:41 PM UTC

I hope that with this change, Python rise to popularity continues. It is a great language IMHO and good to see it being adapted so widely.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#78

Post by belorn » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 2:42 PM UTC

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.

Last time I was a debconf, one such decision was basically 20-30 interested people sitting in the room and the speaker says "We need more people if we want to maintain and develop X, or could switch over and use Y. What is the progress on packing Y?". It was a rather simplistic process by the developer who is doing the work and anyone interested that wanted to show up. Debian leadership rarely get involved in such decisions.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#79

Post by kibwen » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 2:44 PM UTC

sytelus wrote: post #52

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...

Python has been designed by committee for decades now. The PEP process was introduced in 2000, and even before that the language was being designed by the members of the python-dev mailing list.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#80

Post by fesoliveira » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 2:54 PM UTC

porpoisely wrote: post #14

mcherm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you know if council members can be re-elected? Yes, they can, and likely will be in many cases.

Thanks, that's what I figured. So the vote would be a formality most of the time and not something revolutionary.

Well, it creates a way for other members of the core team to replace someone they disagree with without having to call for a no-confidence vote all the time. I don't know what you mean by "revolutionary", but the point of these kinds of councils is to uphold the vision and principles of the language, and so long as the people in the council are making the correct calls in those regards, there would be no reason to replace them.