5 ms·

“It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It” —- Google employee’s defenses of Go Even if it is

by et2o 7y ago

“It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It” —- Google employee’s defenses of Go Even if it is theoretically true that Go is open source, by employing the majority of the Core Go team, Google exercises extensive soft power over Go. All of the defenses of Go seem to gloss over this.

meddlepal 7y ago
Exactly this. And this mailing list post exemplifies that even Googlers don't realize the soft power they have. How many of us get to be lunch or drinking buddies with Russ Cox or Rob Pike? Googlers have much easier access to both than the external community and those are really the only two that matter.
- MikeLui 7y ago
  This situation feels similar to the need of politicians to divest any potential conflicts of interest. I would not accept “just trust me” as a response. As long as there’s a possible conflict of interest, there will be ethical concerns.
  - phillipcarter 7y ago
    > This situation feels similar to the need of politicians to divest any potential conflicts of interest. With the key difference being that you can use a different language and achieve the same results you want. You can't just pick a different government.
    - meddlepal 7y ago
      Except not really because not all of us are greenfield developers 100% of the time.
    - MikeLui 7y ago
      Yes, but they are both still conflicts of interest. Also as the other poster mentions, as Go accrues popularity, it is not always as easy as picking another language.
      - phillipcarter 7y ago
        It's not easy picking another language no matter its popularity, but switching languages and stacks is not uncommon in our industry. In this case it's also entirely on you and your team to achieve success with that switch. This is not at all analogous to a government system.
arendtio 7y ago
While in general, I agree with that quote, I don't think that we have a problem with the Go core team in that respect. I think they do understand the problem but don't really have a solution. I mean, the community has (so far) just a few cases were decisions of the core team were 'not so good'. Sometimes because we didn't like the process and sometimes because of the outcome. But I guess, in general, the majority of Go users likes what the core team does. The problem is more about that many of us have a problem with Google (for a myriad of reasons) and seeing that the core team is tied so deeply into that company makes us worry about future decisions of the core team (as you said). But what could/should the core team do about it? Suggestions?
- phillipcarter 7y ago
  This is partly why, from the perspective of another person at a company working on a language used by people, it's important to: 1. Embed yourself in the community rather than shy away from it. It's impossible to escape the criticism of "acting on behalf of the company", but being a member of the community can certainly help perception problems 2. Act more slowly on accepting things so that as many voices as possible can have a say 3. Scope what you do to what you're capable of doing _well_ Even if a given feature for a given release isn't what the majority want, people will use it if it solves a problem and is designed and implemented thoroughly.
irq-1 7y ago
News Rooms and Editorial boards all swear that management never asks for any changes (and they'd all quit if they did!) I think it would be productive to try and list areas where Go would be different if it wasn't at Google. Some examples: C integration, loading plugins, desktop GUIs.
zzzcpan 7y ago
Agreed. It was interesting to see self contradicting things in the post of how management doesn't control anything and yet people somehow get hired into the core team. And it's not just soft power. Google can actually hire people that serve its interests well and fire those that don't. This is pretty much as much power as possible to have over a project.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hitekker 7y ago
I'm both surprised and unsurprised that this quote is so far down the page. The little twists and turns in the OP are the typical detail-oriented rationalizations of a very smart individual, who has given himself to the group and doesn't want to admit it.

by et2o 7y ago

meddlepal 7y ago

Exactly this. And this mailing list post exemplifies that even Googlers don't realize the soft power they have. How many of us get to be lunch or drinking buddies with Russ Cox or Rob Pike? Googlers have much easier access to both than the external community and those are really the only two that matter.

MikeLui 7y ago
This situation feels similar to the need of politicians to divest any potential conflicts of interest. I would not accept “just trust me” as a response. As long as there’s a possible conflict of interest, there will be ethical concerns.
- phillipcarter 7y ago
  > This situation feels similar to the need of politicians to divest any potential conflicts of interest. With the key difference being that you can use a different language and achieve the same results you want. You can't just pick a different government.
  - meddlepal 7y ago
    Except not really because not all of us are greenfield developers 100% of the time.
  - MikeLui 7y ago
    Yes, but they are both still conflicts of interest. Also as the other poster mentions, as Go accrues popularity, it is not always as easy as picking another language.
    - phillipcarter 7y ago
      It's not easy picking another language no matter its popularity, but switching languages and stacks is not uncommon in our industry. In this case it's also entirely on you and your team to achieve success with that switch. This is not at all analogous to a government system.

arendtio 7y ago

While in general, I agree with that quote, I don't think that we have a problem with the Go core team in that respect. I think they do understand the problem but don't really have a solution. I mean, the community has (so far) just a few cases were decisions of the core team were 'not so good'. Sometimes because we didn't like the process and sometimes because of the outcome. But I guess, in general, the majority of Go users likes what the core team does. The problem is more about that many of us have a problem with Google (for a myriad of reasons) and seeing that the core team is tied so deeply into that company makes us worry about future decisions of the core team (as you said). But what could/should the core team do about it? Suggestions?

phillipcarter 7y ago
This is partly why, from the perspective of another person at a company working on a language used by people, it's important to: 1. Embed yourself in the community rather than shy away from it. It's impossible to escape the criticism of "acting on behalf of the company", but being a member of the community can certainly help perception problems 2. Act more slowly on accepting things so that as many voices as possible can have a say 3. Scope what you do to what you're capable of doing _well_ Even if a given feature for a given release isn't what the majority want, people will use it if it solves a problem and is designed and implemented thoroughly.

irq-1 7y ago

News Rooms and Editorial boards all swear that management never asks for any changes (and they'd all quit if they did!) I think it would be productive to try and list areas where Go would be different if it wasn't at Google. Some examples: C integration, loading plugins, desktop GUIs.

zzzcpan 7y ago

Agreed. It was interesting to see self contradicting things in the post of how management doesn't control anything and yet people somehow get hired into the core team. And it's not just soft power. Google can actually hire people that serve its interests well and fire those that don't. This is pretty much as much power as possible to have over a project.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

hitekker 7y ago

I'm both surprised and unsurprised that this quote is so far down the page. The little twists and turns in the OP are the typical detail-oriented rationalizations of a very smart individual, who has given himself to the group and doesn't want to admit it.