4 ms·

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

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?"
- bsaul 3y ago
  i read that thread, and TBH it looks like the issue was indeed rejected on pragmatic reasons. Coming from a language that is slowly but surely trending to an "everything and the kitchen sink" PL (aka swift), believe me, i appreciate A LOT the care with which go team makes sure any new feature composes perfectly with the existing state of the language and doesn't add too much complexity.
varispeed 3y ago
Your response perfectly illustrates how Overton Window is working in practice. Remarkable.
- falcolas 3y ago
  There is a sizeable group of people - of whom I am one - who accept that software telemetry is incredibly valuable for making decisions about the future of a project. They simply want the use of it to be their choice. Continuing to hold this opinion does not imply that their opinions have somehow been manipulated or changed. As for the Overton Window - telemetry has been a part of software since the internet was a thing. And it will continue to be a thing long into the future. I just fight to keep it as a choice for the user.
  - deafpolygon 3y ago
    By accepting telemetry as a standard practice, it won't be a choice soon.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      It is as long as I have a firewall.
  - jjav 3y ago
    > As for the Overton Window - telemetry has been a part of software since the internet was a thing. Not true. As I mentioned in a separate comment, in the 90s (and even somewhat into the early part of 00s) adding any kind of phone-home functionality to code was pretty much universally seen as outrageous privacy violation. Go back to, say, year 2000 and post on a technical newsgroup about having noticed some code phoning home and watch the outrage fly. This was seen as a line that must absolutely never be crossed. So yes, the overton window has done a massive shift.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > in the 90s (and even somewhat into the early part of 00s) adding any kind of phone-home functionality to code was pretty much universally seen as outrageous privacy violation. Yep. And I remember a few very heated fights between dev teams and marketing teams over it. Devs universally fought adding telemetry because it's an abuse of users and user trust. Marketing universally fought for adding it because it allowed them to sell more efficiently.

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?"
bsaul 3y ago
i read that thread, and TBH it looks like the issue was indeed rejected on pragmatic reasons. Coming from a language that is slowly but surely trending to an "everything and the kitchen sink" PL (aka swift), believe me, i appreciate A LOT the care with which go team makes sure any new feature composes perfectly with the existing state of the language and doesn't add too much complexity.

varispeed 3y ago

Your response perfectly illustrates how Overton Window is working in practice. Remarkable.

falcolas 3y ago
There is a sizeable group of people - of whom I am one - who accept that software telemetry is incredibly valuable for making decisions about the future of a project. They simply want the use of it to be their choice. Continuing to hold this opinion does not imply that their opinions have somehow been manipulated or changed. As for the Overton Window - telemetry has been a part of software since the internet was a thing. And it will continue to be a thing long into the future. I just fight to keep it as a choice for the user.
- deafpolygon 3y ago
  By accepting telemetry as a standard practice, it won't be a choice soon.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    It is as long as I have a firewall.
- jjav 3y ago
  > As for the Overton Window - telemetry has been a part of software since the internet was a thing. Not true. As I mentioned in a separate comment, in the 90s (and even somewhat into the early part of 00s) adding any kind of phone-home functionality to code was pretty much universally seen as outrageous privacy violation. Go back to, say, year 2000 and post on a technical newsgroup about having noticed some code phoning home and watch the outrage fly. This was seen as a line that must absolutely never be crossed. So yes, the overton window has done a massive shift.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > in the 90s (and even somewhat into the early part of 00s) adding any kind of phone-home functionality to code was pretty much universally seen as outrageous privacy violation. Yep. And I remember a few very heated fights between dev teams and marketing teams over it. Devs universally fought adding telemetry because it's an abuse of users and user trust. Marketing universally fought for adding it because it allowed them to sell more efficiently.