4 ms·

I believe everything that Russ Cox says here and don't think it will make a whit of different either. But thats because he does not refute the assertion in the

I believe everything that Russ Cox says here and don't think it will make a whit of different either. But thats because he does not refute the assertion in the original document. Go _is_ Google's project. They may let other people contribute but if Google's interests are not maintained, and further if the small core group who run it inside of Google disagree, you should not assume there is any way to override that. That's literally the point of what the original document was saying. Lots and lots of us can live with that, but it would be much better if the golang contribution process was more explicit about that.

tptacek 7y ago
I guess I just don't see the practical difference between "if Google's interests are not maintained" and "if the small core group who run it disagree". The latter describes lots of things! Very much Clojure, too! The former sounds ominous, but really means the same thing. And with that lack of difference in mind: when the Go team says "Google's interests have little to do with how we're running Go", I'm strongly inclined to believe them, because what difference does it make? Why would they just make it up? But really my point here is just: there's no point in the Go team engaging on this, because I literally can't think of a single thing Russ Cox could say to defuse this drama.
- olau 7y ago
  Perhaps, he could be honest and say, yeah, it's true. We don't think it's a problem because ... but it's something you'll have to live with if you are to use Go. There's precedence, for instance, C# is Microsoft's turf. Seems to me to be a basic human thing - if people are worried, downplaying their worries backfires.
- kasey_junk 7y ago
  He could simply agree. There is nothing wrong with the model they are cultivating. But by not acknowledging it’s what they are doing they leave space for drama. Worse is if they think they are doing something else, because they are missing their intentions by a wide mark.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Lazare 7y ago
  > But really my point here is just: there's no point in the Go team engaging on this, because I literally can't think of a single thing Russ Cox could say to defuse this drama. As others, I think the easiest thing Cox could say in response to these posts is: "Yeah, you're right. Go is open source but it's not community driven. There's a small, insular core team, we have full control over the language, we have a clear vision, we're going to follow that vision, and we think the results so far have justified this approach. We hope you choose to continue to use and, where appropriate, contribute to the project and the larger ecosystem." Go is a very impressive project, and the core team does have very tight control over it, and (very plausibly) that tight control is responsible for the quality of the language. I don't think it necessarily needs to change; certainly not any time soon. Why not embrace it? And I think, if he did that, it would end the drama in a heartbeat, because what's left to discuss?
  - tptacek 7y ago
    The words you put after "Yeah, you're right" don't actually square with the accusation being leveled at them. You're right, I think, that there's a small insular core team with full control and a clear vision. That doesn't make it "Google's project". Put differently: if Russ Cox resigned from Google, I imagine he'd probably remain involved with Go and have the same amount of influence.
    - Lazare 7y ago
      My impression is that most criticism (certainly the criticism I've found valid and troubling) has been focused on whether Go is community driven, or controlled by a small team of core developers who just happen to currently work for Google. Certainly there is some criticism than seems to focus on the idea that Go is controlled by Google, but I feel like that's, at most, a vocal minority. Then again, perhaps I just discount it because I find it pretty silly! > Put differently: if Russ Cox resigned from Google, I imagine he'd probably remain involved with Go and have the same amount of influence. I agree 100%. (Of course, if your concern is how Russ Cox is managing Go, that probably doesn't make you feel better. If your concern is how Sundar Pichai is managing Go...well, I think we can both agree that's not a real issue.)
Carpetsmoker 7y ago
Is this not how it works for pretty much more – if not all – projects? Good luck trying to land a patch in Python if the small group of core developers don't agree. Or PHP. Or Ruby. Or Firefox. Or Linux. Or anything else really. Quite a few of the core Go devs aren't hired by Google out of the general programming pool, they were already contributing to Go and then Google asked "hey, cool stuff; why not come work on Go for us?" Again, this is pretty much how you join any core group of developers: make good contributions, get asked. Except here you actually get paid.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Good luck trying to land a patch in Python if the small group of core developers don't agree. Well, Python has this: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-8016/#electing-the-council https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-8016/#electing-the-counc... and you can also get to be a core team member (and many have). What about Go?
  - Carpetsmoker 7y ago
    as mentioned in another comment, a number of people have been hired by Google "from the community" (including e.g. spf13/Steve Francia, the Go product manager). I don't have access to their HR accounts, so I can't tell you how many exactly. But if you do good work, there's a non-zero chance you'll get hired. I think voting and whatnot are implementation details. That PEP says only core team members can vote who can join the core team, so core team choosing vs. core team voting is not all that different in practice.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      Hired employee implies control, it's not like becoming a part of a group of equals.
      - Carpetsmoker 7y ago
        So everyone is "equal" in Python?

tptacek 7y ago

I guess I just don't see the practical difference between "if Google's interests are not maintained" and "if the small core group who run it disagree". The latter describes lots of things! Very much Clojure, too! The former sounds ominous, but really means the same thing. And with that lack of difference in mind: when the Go team says "Google's interests have little to do with how we're running Go", I'm strongly inclined to believe them, because what difference does it make? Why would they just make it up? But really my point here is just: there's no point in the Go team engaging on this, because I literally can't think of a single thing Russ Cox could say to defuse this drama.

olau 7y ago
Perhaps, he could be honest and say, yeah, it's true. We don't think it's a problem because ... but it's something you'll have to live with if you are to use Go. There's precedence, for instance, C# is Microsoft's turf. Seems to me to be a basic human thing - if people are worried, downplaying their worries backfires.
kasey_junk 7y ago
He could simply agree. There is nothing wrong with the model they are cultivating. But by not acknowledging it’s what they are doing they leave space for drama. Worse is if they think they are doing something else, because they are missing their intentions by a wide mark.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Lazare 7y ago
> But really my point here is just: there's no point in the Go team engaging on this, because I literally can't think of a single thing Russ Cox could say to defuse this drama. As others, I think the easiest thing Cox could say in response to these posts is: "Yeah, you're right. Go is open source but it's not community driven. There's a small, insular core team, we have full control over the language, we have a clear vision, we're going to follow that vision, and we think the results so far have justified this approach. We hope you choose to continue to use and, where appropriate, contribute to the project and the larger ecosystem." Go is a very impressive project, and the core team does have very tight control over it, and (very plausibly) that tight control is responsible for the quality of the language. I don't think it necessarily needs to change; certainly not any time soon. Why not embrace it? And I think, if he did that, it would end the drama in a heartbeat, because what's left to discuss?
- tptacek 7y ago
  The words you put after "Yeah, you're right" don't actually square with the accusation being leveled at them. You're right, I think, that there's a small insular core team with full control and a clear vision. That doesn't make it "Google's project". Put differently: if Russ Cox resigned from Google, I imagine he'd probably remain involved with Go and have the same amount of influence.
  - Lazare 7y ago
    My impression is that most criticism (certainly the criticism I've found valid and troubling) has been focused on whether Go is community driven, or controlled by a small team of core developers who just happen to currently work for Google. Certainly there is some criticism than seems to focus on the idea that Go is controlled by Google, but I feel like that's, at most, a vocal minority. Then again, perhaps I just discount it because I find it pretty silly! > Put differently: if Russ Cox resigned from Google, I imagine he'd probably remain involved with Go and have the same amount of influence. I agree 100%. (Of course, if your concern is how Russ Cox is managing Go, that probably doesn't make you feel better. If your concern is how Sundar Pichai is managing Go...well, I think we can both agree that's not a real issue.)

Carpetsmoker 7y ago

Is this not how it works for pretty much more – if not all – projects? Good luck trying to land a patch in Python if the small group of core developers don't agree. Or PHP. Or Ruby. Or Firefox. Or Linux. Or anything else really. Quite a few of the core Go devs aren't hired by Google out of the general programming pool, they were already contributing to Go and then Google asked "hey, cool stuff; why not come work on Go for us?" Again, this is pretty much how you join any core group of developers: make good contributions, get asked. Except here you actually get paid.

coldtea 7y ago
>Good luck trying to land a patch in Python if the small group of core developers don't agree. Well, Python has this: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-8016/#electing-the-council https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-8016/#electing-the-counc... and you can also get to be a core team member (and many have). What about Go?
- Carpetsmoker 7y ago
  as mentioned in another comment, a number of people have been hired by Google "from the community" (including e.g. spf13/Steve Francia, the Go product manager). I don't have access to their HR accounts, so I can't tell you how many exactly. But if you do good work, there's a non-zero chance you'll get hired. I think voting and whatnot are implementation details. That PEP says only core team members can vote who can join the core team, so core team choosing vs. core team voting is not all that different in practice.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Hired employee implies control, it's not like becoming a part of a group of equals.
    - Carpetsmoker 7y ago
      So everyone is "equal" in Python?