3 ms·

> Google is highly invested Kotlin I don't see what benefit of putting them on the board would give them, same thing with Rust, just because it's used on Andro

> Google is highly invested Kotlin I don't see what benefit of putting them on the board would give them, same thing with Rust, just because it's used on Android? Was a gold sponsorship not enough? > Honestly I just don’t see it here. You're not looking hard enough, they are bearing 'generous' gifts to these foundations, Example: OpenAI was all about openness weren't they? But a big somebody bared a huge gift and so much for 'Open AI'. Don't you think Google and others like them are doing the same thing such that they are getting you to use their products through their 'donations'? > That doesn’t handwave legitimate complaints here and I don’t like Google have arbitrary outsized influence either but I don’t think that’s the case with these commuters/foundations Again we shall see, but I am seeing this everywhere and I am not happy with the shift from community to corporation led open source projects. A sponsorship should be enough but they want more as always.

ta988 6y ago
Kotlin is not a community led project. It has always been a Jetbrains led project, and that move to a foundation is a way to try to distribute responsibilities a bit more. At least thats how they sell it.
no_wizard 6y ago
I can understand caution and concern and it’s healthy to have it. That said, I’m unable to think of or find obvious examples of them having a track record of using foundations like this for their own agenda at the expense of the community, language or only to further their own ends. Even with the browser stuff there’s Chrome the product which makes a lot of changes that does hurt the community but then there’s Googles representation on tc39 and in the web standards groups. With that I haven’t found evidence of malpractice or foul play. Please give me some concrete evidence that they have a history of this as I’m not finding it. Doesn’t mean that as a whole these companies get a pass for Bad behavior, I think a key to a great argument against something is to be able to scope what it does and doesn’t do, so I hate to say they are doing this for malicious reasons only to be wrong (and again I’m not seeing evidence) and undercutting more legitimate arguments. Fundamentally that’s the arching issue we end up with by just making assumptions without evidence at a minimum

ta988 6y ago

Kotlin is not a community led project. It has always been a Jetbrains led project, and that move to a foundation is a way to try to distribute responsibilities a bit more. At least thats how they sell it.

no_wizard 6y ago

I can understand caution and concern and it’s healthy to have it. That said, I’m unable to think of or find obvious examples of them having a track record of using foundations like this for their own agenda at the expense of the community, language or only to further their own ends. Even with the browser stuff there’s Chrome the product which makes a lot of changes that does hurt the community but then there’s Googles representation on tc39 and in the web standards groups. With that I haven’t found evidence of malpractice or foul play. Please give me some concrete evidence that they have a history of this as I’m not finding it. Doesn’t mean that as a whole these companies get a pass for Bad behavior, I think a key to a great argument against something is to be able to scope what it does and doesn’t do, so I hate to say they are doing this for malicious reasons only to be wrong (and again I’m not seeing evidence) and undercutting more legitimate arguments. Fundamentally that’s the arching issue we end up with by just making assumptions without evidence at a minimum