4 ms·

> I think many heavily used pieces of software can benefit from a BDFL-like decision maker instead, especially if the alternative is software specifically desi

by davb 9y ago

> I think many heavily used pieces of software can benefit from a BDFL-like decision maker instead, especially if the alternative is software specifically designed to use me as a guinea pig surreptitiously. I feel like, in the race for adoption, we suffer a form of the tyranny of the majority with software. I’ve recently been feeling the same but couldn’t articulate it as well as you have. This is one thing that the biggest open source projects seem to get wrong more often than right (trying to be all things to all people, all of the time). Management by consensus usually yields mediocre results in the commercial space, too. The BDFL model is a great compromise. Everyone gets a say, but not the final say, and there’s a consistent vision driving the project. When projects get very popular, it’s hard to say “no” and keep that vision focussed. This seems to come more naturally to proprietary projects, at times resulting in a better overall experience for the narrower subset of users served.

rectang 9y ago
There are advantages and disadvantages to community governance. It is easier for people to feel ownership and a governance stake. Projects tend to value backwards compat more consistently, rather than following the preference of an individual BDFL, since stakeholders who are injured by a compat break can have more say. This stability over time makes them safe to invest in. Plugin based architectures tend to work well under such governance, as then the contributors are more insulated from each other and interfere less frequently. No single governance mechanism is so much better that the others need to go away. Not every project should have community governance, not every project should have a BDFL. Not every project should even take outside contributions -- personal projects (especially licensed under CC0) can offer great value to the wider world without having to placate opinionated contributors.

by davb 9y ago

rectang 9y ago

There are advantages and disadvantages to community governance. It is easier for people to feel ownership and a governance stake. Projects tend to value backwards compat more consistently, rather than following the preference of an individual BDFL, since stakeholders who are injured by a compat break can have more say. This stability over time makes them safe to invest in. Plugin based architectures tend to work well under such governance, as then the contributors are more insulated from each other and interfere less frequently. No single governance mechanism is so much better that the others need to go away. Not every project should have community governance, not every project should have a BDFL. Not every project should even take outside contributions -- personal projects (especially licensed under CC0) can offer great value to the wider world without having to placate opinionated contributors.