3 ms·

It can be both. Many power grabs and coups are performed by people with a good faith belief that they're right and the current administration is wrong or danger

It can be both. Many power grabs and coups are performed by people with a good faith belief that they're right and the current administration is wrong or dangerous.

asveikau 7y ago
Yet I feel like "power grab" is a loaded description that implies such a "grab" is unjustified and that the grabber is primarily interested in power for power's sake, not for otherwise justifiable, altruistic, or benevolent reasons.
- Brian_K_White 7y ago
  Because it is a bad thing regardless who does it. If the supposed good guys were actually as good as they thought they were, they would simply aim to do whatever jobs need doing with as much integrity as they posess. They wouldn't be grabbing power, for any reason. There is no "enlightened" reason to grab power. If you don't like how someone else runs something, it's not your only option to try to take it over from them. You can also simply not join that club and not care what it does or how it does it. An organization like OSI isn't like a geographical country where you are forced to be in it, and so there is some legitimate excuse for actively vying for control over it and it's policies.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    The whole idea of merit and meritocracy is that power and influence (and perhaps control, if applicable) should be allocated fairly and transparently, via processes that reliably correlate with good decision-making. Notably, a stridently authoritarian leadership style calling for bans on "evil" and "unethical" software use (as featured in the so-called "Ethical Software Definition") does not correlate with such; but to be fair, neither does the use of obnoxious name-calling like "toxic loony". To me, the latter just feels sad! So, I'd say I can see "both sides" in this, so to speak.
  - asveikau 7y ago
    It's weird for open source because the ousted party can usually take the tree and fork. A prominent example of this is OpenBSD, which started with Theo being ousted from NetBSD. In many ways that fork is now more influential than the original. My initial reaction was to compare your sentiment to nation states and consider it in its extreme to be a justification for despotic behavior, though your comment tries to rule that out. After further consideration I think the OpenBSD example is more illustrative and a more constructive reply. Outside of licensing wars which sometimes happen, there is not always a need to be the "original" fork.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      > My initial reaction was to compare your sentiment to nation states and consider it in its extreme to be a justification for despotic behavior I think maybe part of the problem across the board is a tendency to use analogous thinking to 'raise the stakes' of relatively minor matters by comparing them to very serious matters. It's important to keep ourselves grounded and remember that we're discussing programs, not pogroms.
    - zozbot234 7y ago
      > It's weird for open source because the ousted party can usually take the tree and fork Ah, but they can't do this freely and effortlessly if they've been labeled as Persona Non Grata in the license by the previous maintainer. (See, it's genius! This is such a great idea, I can't possibly tell what might go wrong with it. "Programs, not pogroms" indeed.)
    - CRConrad 7y ago
      But then, if the prospective oustee is a long-standing member of the already-existing community — and it's hard to argue that the co-founder is anything but that — then shouldn't it be the Johnny-come-lately constable of the tone police that should be the one to fork the tree and start their own community around that?

It can be both. Many power grabs and coups are performed by people with a good faith belief that they're right and the current administration is wrong or dangerous.

asveikau 7y ago

Yet I feel like "power grab" is a loaded description that implies such a "grab" is unjustified and that the grabber is primarily interested in power for power's sake, not for otherwise justifiable, altruistic, or benevolent reasons.

Brian_K_White 7y ago
Because it is a bad thing regardless who does it. If the supposed good guys were actually as good as they thought they were, they would simply aim to do whatever jobs need doing with as much integrity as they posess. They wouldn't be grabbing power, for any reason. There is no "enlightened" reason to grab power. If you don't like how someone else runs something, it's not your only option to try to take it over from them. You can also simply not join that club and not care what it does or how it does it. An organization like OSI isn't like a geographical country where you are forced to be in it, and so there is some legitimate excuse for actively vying for control over it and it's policies.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  The whole idea of merit and meritocracy is that power and influence (and perhaps control, if applicable) should be allocated fairly and transparently, via processes that reliably correlate with good decision-making. Notably, a stridently authoritarian leadership style calling for bans on "evil" and "unethical" software use (as featured in the so-called "Ethical Software Definition") does not correlate with such; but to be fair, neither does the use of obnoxious name-calling like "toxic loony". To me, the latter just feels sad! So, I'd say I can see "both sides" in this, so to speak.
- asveikau 7y ago
  It's weird for open source because the ousted party can usually take the tree and fork. A prominent example of this is OpenBSD, which started with Theo being ousted from NetBSD. In many ways that fork is now more influential than the original. My initial reaction was to compare your sentiment to nation states and consider it in its extreme to be a justification for despotic behavior, though your comment tries to rule that out. After further consideration I think the OpenBSD example is more illustrative and a more constructive reply. Outside of licensing wars which sometimes happen, there is not always a need to be the "original" fork.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    > My initial reaction was to compare your sentiment to nation states and consider it in its extreme to be a justification for despotic behavior I think maybe part of the problem across the board is a tendency to use analogous thinking to 'raise the stakes' of relatively minor matters by comparing them to very serious matters. It's important to keep ourselves grounded and remember that we're discussing programs, not pogroms.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    > It's weird for open source because the ousted party can usually take the tree and fork Ah, but they can't do this freely and effortlessly if they've been labeled as Persona Non Grata in the license by the previous maintainer. (See, it's genius! This is such a great idea, I can't possibly tell what might go wrong with it. "Programs, not pogroms" indeed.)
  - CRConrad 7y ago
    But then, if the prospective oustee is a long-standing member of the already-existing community — and it's hard to argue that the co-founder is anything but that — then shouldn't it be the Johnny-come-lately constable of the tone police that should be the one to fork the tree and start their own community around that?