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

91–100 of 191 posts

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#91

Post by sciurus »

cyphar wrote: post #82
kibwen wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In Westminster-style democracies, party members elect their party's leader (the general public don't get to decide who the leader of a particular party is). In America, you can only vote in primaries (that is, choose presidential and other candidates) if you are a registered voter of that party -- which means that it's also restricted to a subset of the public. So I'm not sure I agree it is a mismatch to most democra…

Nitpick, but like many things in America that varies from state to state. Many have "open primaries" where you just show up and request whichever party's ballot you want.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_primaries_in_the_United...

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#92

Post by snuxoll »

d--b wrote: post #65

Note that this is a 5-people committee, not a universal voting mechanism. That these guys will change often is a problem though.

There are no term limits for steering council members, assuming they are doing the job adequately the core team can just let them continue in their seat.

Giving a moderately frequent way to change up less-than-stellar-but-not-malicious council members without a no-confidence vote is a Good Thing (TM).

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#93

Post by [deleted] »

iosonofuturista wrote: post #90
krn wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it does speak to potential limitations of the model The parent compared a group of volunteers with the largest open-source company in the world, which is a part S&P 500. No other Linux distribution has a comparable amount of resources. Even Canonical is following the RedHat's lead (systemd, Wayland, PulseAudio).

So by your logic, Microsoft and Apple make better OSes than Linux by several orders of magnitude.

[deleted]

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#94

Post by gambler »

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.

It's not like there is only one alternative. You can solve most of those problems by splitting large organization into smaller independent ones. Instead of wasting energy on elaborate bureaucracies and rules, people ought to spend some time on studying how to handle this "splitting" in the best way possible. Alas, most people like to play government.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#95

Post by toyg »

krn wrote: post #85
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> it does speak to potential limitations of the model The parent compared a group of volunteers with the largest open-source company in the world, which is a part S&P 500. No other Linux distribution has a comparable amount of resources. Even Canonical is following the RedHat's lead (systemd, Wayland, PulseAudio).

RedHat wasn’t always as big as it is now. In fact, it was likely smaller than Debian, in terms of manpower, for some time. I suspect the total number of package maintainers is still higher on the Debian side.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#96

Post by hannasanarion »

gambler wrote: post #94
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.

It's not like there is only one alternative. You can solve most of those problems by splitting large organization into smaller independent ones. Instead of wasting energy on elaborate bureaucracies and rules, people ought to spend some time on studying how to handle this "splitting" in the best way possible. Alas, most people like to play government.

So you're saying that python should be split into multiple separate non-interacting languages?

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#97

Post by [deleted] »

iosonofuturista wrote: post #90
krn wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it does speak to potential limitations of the model The parent compared a group of volunteers with the largest open-source company in the world, which is a part S&P 500. No other Linux distribution has a comparable amount of resources. Even Canonical is following the RedHat's lead (systemd, Wayland, PulseAudio).

So by your logic, Microsoft and Apple make better OSes than Linux by several orders of magnitude.

[deleted]

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#98

Post by gambler »

hannasanarion wrote: post #96
gambler wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like there is only one alternative. You can solve most of those problems by splitting large organization into smaller independent ones. Instead of wasting energy on elaborate bureaucracies and rules, people ought to spend some time on studying how to handle this "splitting" in the best way possible. Alas, most people like to play government.

So you're saying that python should be split into multiple separate non-interacting languages?

If organizational problems take a significant toll on its progress, then absolutely.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#99

Post by mjw1007 »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #70
ThePhysicist wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't think there's a good way to measure Debian's contributions outside strictly packaging its distribution.

If a Debian developer, or a group of Debian developers, sets out to solve some problem that isn't Debian-specific, the result is (quite correctly) seen as a new independent free-software project rather than a Debian project.

For example, as I understand it the reproducible builds project (now reproducible-builds.org) started out inside Debian, then became a thing of its own.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#100

Post by C1sc0cat »

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.

Also a robust appeal process is used to stave off legal challenges - its why companies have hr grievance/discipline procedures.
Post reply on HN