7 ms·

Very relieved that they chose to back off the initial opt-out proposal. It’s always refreshing to see a language listening to its user base. This was the kind o

by bsaul 3y ago

Very relieved that they chose to back off the initial opt-out proposal. It’s always refreshing to see a language listening to its user base. This was the kind of decision that could instantly change the reputation of a PL, for purely political / psychological reasons.

varispeed 3y ago
It's a classic case of Overton Window They get users accustomed to the idea that now telemetry is in the toolchain. Next step will be to "accidentally" turn it on for everyone. Then it will be "oopsie daisy" everyone is okay? See. Nothing happened, so we'll leave it opt out.
- rob74 3y ago
  I very much doubt that everyone would be okay with them "accidentally" turning telemetry on by default while continuing to say that it's opt-in. In fact, it would be very damaging for the Go project's reputation, especially since everyone already associates Google with "spying on users"...
  - candiddevmike 3y ago
    The vast majority of folks downvoted the initial proposal and they're still moving forward with it (albeit as opt-in now), so I don't think everyone's opinion really matters here. Go isn't a democracy, for better or for worse.
    - falcolas 3y ago
      Opt-in is a huge concession, especially since it means they will lose a lot of the information they would have gotten had they kept it opt-in. It makes built-in telemetry more palatable, because it gives the users a choice. In contrast with how Homebrew implemented their opt-out telemetry, opinions obviously did matter to Go. Yes, I'm still salty about that project being so tone deaf.
      - candiddevmike 3y ago
        There is an uneven distribution of power here that allows someone to write a blog post, create a very poorly received proposal, and have it be accepted after a concession, all over the course of a few months. Compare that to some of the other proposals with a ton of backing that have been frozen for years (like https://github.com/golang/go/issues/49085 https://github.com/golang/go/issues/49085) due to the core team disagreeing with the direction. Basically, there's a very obvious in group that has to pay lip service to the proletariat but otherwise can do whatever they please.
        falcolas 3y ago
        That sounds like our old nemesis: politics. Who holds control and how they exert that control is a very human issue that exists for every project in existence (modulo an outlier or two). Telemetry is valuable for making decisions and identifying issues, so it's no surprise the group making decisions about the future of the project would welcome the proposal.
        rightbyte 3y ago
        I think it is very cheritable to believe people on Google's payroll use spyware to "identify issues".
        shadowgovt 3y ago
        That's fairly true of many (possibly most?) programming languages with more than 100 users. You can always fork an open-source implementation, but that's a lot less useful when it means your code is no longer compiler-compatible with other people's code. So languages tend to be run by some committee, and a lot of the popular ones have a Benevolent Dictator for Life or a small committee. Guido was Benevolent Dictator for Life of Python until 2018. C++ is standardized by JTC1/SC22/WG21 (and Microsoft still has huge influence on it based on simply whether they decide or not to incorporate a feature into MSVC). Ruby is an ISO standard. Common LISP is an ANSI standard. Modifying a widely-adopted language in a way that will be seen by most users is at least as much "Can you work with those with the political influence to decide 'yes'" as "Is your recommended modification technically good?"
    - arp242 3y ago
      "They changed the proposal based on feedback but no one's opinion mattered" Ehhh...
    - mseepgood 3y ago
      > The vast majority of folks downvoted the initial proposal And the vast majority upvoted this proposal.
- stanleydrew 3y ago
  This implies some sort of malicious intent on the part of the Go maintainers, which doesn't really seem fair given the way the original proposal was written and how feedback was incorporated.
  - jjav 3y ago
    > This implies some sort of malicious intent on the part of the Go maintainers It doesn't really, not necessarily anyway. Think of all the awful terrible laws that get introduced "for the children". While in politics there are certainly a lot more malicious actors than in development, there are certainly many people who truly believe they are doing good "for the children" and they simply don't stop and think what are the drawbacks of their proposals. I think it's just human nature to look for solutions to improve things which they are involved in (which is great) without (often) giving enough weight to how it harms other people (which is not good). That's why it's important to push back against these things, whether in software or in law.
- barsonme 3y ago
  This is a very unfair and unfounded criticism of the Go maintainers.
- deafpolygon 3y ago
  This will be the case. They're just moving the goal post to a safe distance for now.
duped 3y ago
> This was the kind of decision that could instantly change the reputation of a PL, for purely political / psychological reasons. Go already has a bad reputation for political reasons.
- bsaul 3y ago
  care to give more details ? I'm not sure what you're thinking about.

by bsaul 3y ago

varispeed 3y ago

It's a classic case of Overton Window They get users accustomed to the idea that now telemetry is in the toolchain. Next step will be to "accidentally" turn it on for everyone. Then it will be "oopsie daisy" everyone is okay? See. Nothing happened, so we'll leave it opt out.

rob74 3y ago
I very much doubt that everyone would be okay with them "accidentally" turning telemetry on by default while continuing to say that it's opt-in. In fact, it would be very damaging for the Go project's reputation, especially since everyone already associates Google with "spying on users"...
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  The vast majority of folks downvoted the initial proposal and they're still moving forward with it (albeit as opt-in now), so I don't think everyone's opinion really matters here. Go isn't a democracy, for better or for worse.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    Opt-in is a huge concession, especially since it means they will lose a lot of the information they would have gotten had they kept it opt-in. It makes built-in telemetry more palatable, because it gives the users a choice. In contrast with how Homebrew implemented their opt-out telemetry, opinions obviously did matter to Go. Yes, I'm still salty about that project being so tone deaf.
    - candiddevmike 3y ago
      There is an uneven distribution of power here that allows someone to write a blog post, create a very poorly received proposal, and have it be accepted after a concession, all over the course of a few months. Compare that to some of the other proposals with a ton of backing that have been frozen for years (like https://github.com/golang/go/issues/49085 https://github.com/golang/go/issues/49085) due to the core team disagreeing with the direction. Basically, there's a very obvious in group that has to pay lip service to the proletariat but otherwise can do whatever they please.
      - falcolas 3y ago
        That sounds like our old nemesis: politics. Who holds control and how they exert that control is a very human issue that exists for every project in existence (modulo an outlier or two). Telemetry is valuable for making decisions and identifying issues, so it's no surprise the group making decisions about the future of the project would welcome the proposal.
        rightbyte 3y ago
        I think it is very cheritable to believe people on Google's payroll use spyware to "identify issues".
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        That's fairly true of many (possibly most?) programming languages with more than 100 users. You can always fork an open-source implementation, but that's a lot less useful when it means your code is no longer compiler-compatible with other people's code. So languages tend to be run by some committee, and a lot of the popular ones have a Benevolent Dictator for Life or a small committee. Guido was Benevolent Dictator for Life of Python until 2018. C++ is standardized by JTC1/SC22/WG21 (and Microsoft still has huge influence on it based on simply whether they decide or not to incorporate a feature into MSVC). Ruby is an ISO standard. Common LISP is an ANSI standard. Modifying a widely-adopted language in a way that will be seen by most users is at least as much "Can you work with those with the political influence to decide 'yes'" as "Is your recommended modification technically good?"
  - arp242 3y ago
    "They changed the proposal based on feedback but no one's opinion mattered" Ehhh...
  - mseepgood 3y ago
    > The vast majority of folks downvoted the initial proposal And the vast majority upvoted this proposal.
stanleydrew 3y ago
This implies some sort of malicious intent on the part of the Go maintainers, which doesn't really seem fair given the way the original proposal was written and how feedback was incorporated.
- jjav 3y ago
  > This implies some sort of malicious intent on the part of the Go maintainers It doesn't really, not necessarily anyway. Think of all the awful terrible laws that get introduced "for the children". While in politics there are certainly a lot more malicious actors than in development, there are certainly many people who truly believe they are doing good "for the children" and they simply don't stop and think what are the drawbacks of their proposals. I think it's just human nature to look for solutions to improve things which they are involved in (which is great) without (often) giving enough weight to how it harms other people (which is not good). That's why it's important to push back against these things, whether in software or in law.
barsonme 3y ago
This is a very unfair and unfounded criticism of the Go maintainers.
deafpolygon 3y ago
This will be the case. They're just moving the goal post to a safe distance for now.

duped 3y ago

> This was the kind of decision that could instantly change the reputation of a PL, for purely political / psychological reasons. Go already has a bad reputation for political reasons.

bsaul 3y ago
care to give more details ? I'm not sure what you're thinking about.