3 ms·

The point of freedom in software is certainly that I can create my own fork. And individual projects a maintainer can certainly do what he wants. But it is st

by uecker 1y ago

The point of freedom in software is certainly that I can create my own fork. And individual projects a maintainer can certainly do what he wants. But it is still worrying if in community projects such as Debian when decisions that come with a cost to some part of the community are pushed through without full consensus. It would be certainly not the first time. systemd was similar and for similar reasons (commercial interests by some key stakeholders), and I would argue that Debian did suffer a lot from how badly this was handled. I do not think the community ever got as healthy and vibrant as it was before this. So it t would be sad if this continues.

Klonoar 1y ago
> are pushed through without full consensus You describe it that way, but that's not how the world in general works in practice. You do things based on majority.
- uecker 1y ago
  No, this is not how you do things in a functioning community. You do things based on societal contracts that also protect the interests of minorities.
  - Klonoar 1y ago
    I cannot fathom using the rest of my Saturday attempting to break down the level of spin you’re trying to play at here.
throwaway7356 1y ago
> systemd was similar and for similar reasons (commercial interests by some key stakeholders) False claims don't really make the claims about the evils of Rust more believable.
kelnos 1y ago
> pushed through without full consensus Requiring full consensus for decisions is a great way to make no decisions.
solidsnack9000 1y ago
...it is still worrying if in community projects such as Debian when decisions that come with a cost to some part of the community are pushed through without full consensus. What are some concrete cases you can point to where a decision was made with full consensus? Literally everyone agreed? All the users? I'm not sure many projects have ever been run that way. I'm sure we've all heard of the Benevolent Dictator for Life (BDfL). I'm sure Linus has made an executive decision once in a while.

by uecker 1y ago

Klonoar 1y ago

> are pushed through without full consensus You describe it that way, but that's not how the world in general works in practice. You do things based on majority.

uecker 1y ago
No, this is not how you do things in a functioning community. You do things based on societal contracts that also protect the interests of minorities.
- Klonoar 1y ago
  I cannot fathom using the rest of my Saturday attempting to break down the level of spin you’re trying to play at here.

throwaway7356 1y ago

> systemd was similar and for similar reasons (commercial interests by some key stakeholders) False claims don't really make the claims about the evils of Rust more believable.

kelnos 1y ago

> pushed through without full consensus Requiring full consensus for decisions is a great way to make no decisions.

solidsnack9000 1y ago

...it is still worrying if in community projects such as Debian when decisions that come with a cost to some part of the community are pushed through without full consensus. What are some concrete cases you can point to where a decision was made with full consensus? Literally everyone agreed? All the users? I'm not sure many projects have ever been run that way. I'm sure we've all heard of the Benevolent Dictator for Life (BDfL). I'm sure Linus has made an executive decision once in a while.