5 ms·

As a matter of fact no, benevolent dictator is not significantly worse. In fact historical evidence when it comes to OSS projects points to the benevolent dicta

As a matter of fact no, benevolent dictator is not significantly worse. In fact historical evidence when it comes to OSS projects points to the benevolent dictator model being the most effective. It may not satisfy social justice activists pretending to be competent programmers demanding a seat at a table that they never earned, but most successful projects are not ruled by committee until they reach a significant level of maturation, and it’s arguable their development slows down quite a bit at that point.

throwawaygh 5y ago
> benevolent dictator is not significantly worse I think your normative justification for project dictatorship misses the more important point: there's probably a dictatorship either way. In these cases, the main advantage of the overt dictatorship model over the layer of indirection dictatorship model is that you at least know who's really in charge. In some odd sense, the mod team that just resigned is in agreement: their resignation lays vare exactly who's in charge.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  The benevolent dictator might have too much sway in some project, although in most cases it literary is his project. Problem with enforcing compliance of behavior is that this becomes the raison d'être. This will always fail in any configuration at some point. We are talking about people and if their rulings don't find acceptance, they will interpret it as a personal attack. I am not above that, you are not above that and nobody really is. I have no info about this case, but it fits the profile. I only take active part in smaller OSS projects and corporate rules in general do suck the fun out of it. Maybe Rust is beyond that, but I would vastly prefer the eccentric dictator to corporate HR, because the latter is nothing else. The dictator or developer has other ambitions aside from behavior enforcement, so it is easier to cooperate. And if you do not like the dictator, you might be able to fork the project and make it conform to your personal views to the same (overbearing) degree. Win-win.
couchand 5y ago
Far too many promising open source projects have disappeared because the benevolent dictator lost interest and disappeared without leaving an empowered community. Far too many promising open source projects withered and died because the not-actually-benevolent dictator turned off every would-be contributor. In the scope of things, these are much more common that the few examples of projects that succeeded in spite of low bus factor and toxicity.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  The code doesn't cease to exist. If one person is doing all the heavy lifting and decides to stop, it isn't their fault for not creating a social hierarchy.

throwawaygh 5y ago

> benevolent dictator is not significantly worse I think your normative justification for project dictatorship misses the more important point: there's probably a dictatorship either way. In these cases, the main advantage of the overt dictatorship model over the layer of indirection dictatorship model is that you at least know who's really in charge. In some odd sense, the mod team that just resigned is in agreement: their resignation lays vare exactly who's in charge.

raxxorrax 5y ago
The benevolent dictator might have too much sway in some project, although in most cases it literary is his project. Problem with enforcing compliance of behavior is that this becomes the raison d'être. This will always fail in any configuration at some point. We are talking about people and if their rulings don't find acceptance, they will interpret it as a personal attack. I am not above that, you are not above that and nobody really is. I have no info about this case, but it fits the profile. I only take active part in smaller OSS projects and corporate rules in general do suck the fun out of it. Maybe Rust is beyond that, but I would vastly prefer the eccentric dictator to corporate HR, because the latter is nothing else. The dictator or developer has other ambitions aside from behavior enforcement, so it is easier to cooperate. And if you do not like the dictator, you might be able to fork the project and make it conform to your personal views to the same (overbearing) degree. Win-win.

couchand 5y ago

Far too many promising open source projects have disappeared because the benevolent dictator lost interest and disappeared without leaving an empowered community. Far too many promising open source projects withered and died because the not-actually-benevolent dictator turned off every would-be contributor. In the scope of things, these are much more common that the few examples of projects that succeeded in spite of low bus factor and toxicity.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
The code doesn't cease to exist. If one person is doing all the heavy lifting and decides to stop, it isn't their fault for not creating a social hierarchy.