3 ms·
> It starts by acknowledging that somebody needs to take decisions and that not all opinions matter equally. Find some respected long term committers and organi
by burntsushi 8y ago
> It starts by acknowledging that somebody needs to take decisions and that not all opinions matter equally. Find some respected long term committers and organize decision making strictly around those doing the most work.
No, that's not a way out, because that's effectively what we started with at the dawn of Rust 1.0. withoutboats addresses the problems we've had in the post.
- jillesvangurp 8y agoI wouldn't dismiss it that lightly. We tried it and it didn't work is not much of an argument here because this is exactly how many other OSS and standards bodies work. E.g. IETF has a process that balances the interests of the stakeholders involved but there's a clear editorial process with somebody nominated to be charge. Same with how Apache functions. Or the Eclipse foundation. These organizations have done stuff like this for a while and they get to deal with plenty of angry users, politics, and other issues that just are part of the deal when you have many stakeholders. Even Linus Torvalds, the prototypical benevolent leader, seems to have come up with a decision process that kind of works. Not that I would advocate that particular way of working. The bottom line is that most bigger projects seem to end up with some kind of meritocracy. Not a bad thing to have a few responsible leaders staying on top of things.
- burntsushi 8y agoI don't really want to get into it, but my point is not that, "it doesn't work," but rather, "no, we have actually tried that, so there must be more to the story." A key difference, for example, between Rust and the other projects you mention is the collective expectation of the community's involvement in the decision making process.