3 ms·

yea, sorry, I tend to over-use the "edit" button and treat "submit" as "save draft". > How exactly are the groups of people working on various parts of the off

yea, sorry, I tend to over-use the "edit" button and treat "submit" as "save draft". > How exactly are the groups of people working on various parts of the official ecosystem supposed to coordinate their efforts? The only alternative I've seen is a benevolent dictator, which seems significantly worse for a number of reasons. Yeah, I guess I'm just getting old. The idea of an open source project with enough people to form an entire committee of moderators also feels weird, but is apparently fairly normal these days.

couchand 5y ago
It's our industry that's getting old. You used to be able to start a big project like a compiler or a browser and have some hope of producing a functional result "organically" (for lack of a better word). But we've reached the point where we're no longer just scrabbling together hovels with scrap wood, we're trying to build the Pyramids or the Hoover Dam now. A few anonymous internet denizens are not going to be able to accomplish that.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  Sure. And I dislike corporate BS but happily work in corporations as long as I can mostly get away with nothing but the most surface-level acknowledgment that the shit does indeed smell like roses. (And like 90+% of what HR enforces is mostly good anyways; pretending it's not a facade is often a small price to pay for the level of nonsense I'm shielded from) Again, I'm not even necessarily saying things should be different or proposing a better alternative. Just expressing a feeling. If could change one thing in the corporate world, it wouldn't be to change how corporations work. Simply disabusing people of fantasies about how corporations work would be far better than any incremental improvement. I guess I feel the same way about OSS codes of conduct. They're facade. To the extent that they're enforced, it's because the wizard behind the CoC curtain allows this to the case. Should anything be changed? IDK, but everyone understanding this would probably be preferable to any incremental change to project governance. If that makes sense.
  - klabb3 5y ago
    Late to the party, but I strongly agree with your comments in this thread, based on similar experience in a corporate environment. The weird paradox in this governance model is why we see so much fluff around the actual autocracy that - at the end of the day - is what matters. Why pay for HR, townhall events etc, etc, if in the end it doesn't matter? I think the obvious reason is - ironically - making accountability optional, through selective enforcement. If you have an arbitrary and emotionally based strict set of rules, you can freely accuse practically anyone for breaking it, since the owners have last say anyway. As such, you can say "sorry, we had to let Tim go, because he violated policy" - and abracadabra, nobody is personally accountable. It's the woke equivalent of a firing squad. In fact, if a process is not universal, but selective, it is just a power tool. And what's more attractive than a power tool? Simply throw process on people you dislike, and let the people you like through. That's not to say there's some calculated malicious intent behind this. There are tons of people who genuinely think these systems are good and serve them, or people less privileged than them.

couchand 5y ago

It's our industry that's getting old. You used to be able to start a big project like a compiler or a browser and have some hope of producing a functional result "organically" (for lack of a better word). But we've reached the point where we're no longer just scrabbling together hovels with scrap wood, we're trying to build the Pyramids or the Hoover Dam now. A few anonymous internet denizens are not going to be able to accomplish that.

throwawaygh 5y ago
Sure. And I dislike corporate BS but happily work in corporations as long as I can mostly get away with nothing but the most surface-level acknowledgment that the shit does indeed smell like roses. (And like 90+% of what HR enforces is mostly good anyways; pretending it's not a facade is often a small price to pay for the level of nonsense I'm shielded from) Again, I'm not even necessarily saying things should be different or proposing a better alternative. Just expressing a feeling. If could change one thing in the corporate world, it wouldn't be to change how corporations work. Simply disabusing people of fantasies about how corporations work would be far better than any incremental improvement. I guess I feel the same way about OSS codes of conduct. They're facade. To the extent that they're enforced, it's because the wizard behind the CoC curtain allows this to the case. Should anything be changed? IDK, but everyone understanding this would probably be preferable to any incremental change to project governance. If that makes sense.
- klabb3 5y ago
  Late to the party, but I strongly agree with your comments in this thread, based on similar experience in a corporate environment. The weird paradox in this governance model is why we see so much fluff around the actual autocracy that - at the end of the day - is what matters. Why pay for HR, townhall events etc, etc, if in the end it doesn't matter? I think the obvious reason is - ironically - making accountability optional, through selective enforcement. If you have an arbitrary and emotionally based strict set of rules, you can freely accuse practically anyone for breaking it, since the owners have last say anyway. As such, you can say "sorry, we had to let Tim go, because he violated policy" - and abracadabra, nobody is personally accountable. It's the woke equivalent of a firing squad. In fact, if a process is not universal, but selective, it is just a power tool. And what's more attractive than a power tool? Simply throw process on people you dislike, and let the people you like through. That's not to say there's some calculated malicious intent behind this. There are tons of people who genuinely think these systems are good and serve them, or people less privileged than them.