3 ms·
I think it's good for the future of Mastodon as a decentralized platform to not depend essentially on any one person. After all, the web itself no longer depend
by lapcat 11mo ago
I think it's good for the future of Mastodon as a decentralized platform to not depend essentially on any one person. After all, the web itself no longer depends on Tim Berners-Lee. That doesn't diminish their accomplishments, which were never about king-making.
- hinkley 11mo agoTruthfully, the web never did depend entirely on Tim. He made neither the browsers nor the servers that people used, and libwww was so full of bugs and memory leaks that it was heavily modified by those who did, if they used it at all. The W3C was its own thing.
- jshen 11mo agoIt depends what the alternative is. A vacuum is worse for example.
- lapcat 11mo agoThere's no power vacuum. There's now a Mastodon nonprofit organization with an executive director and leadership team.
- thinkingtoilet 11mo agoSo worse... a committee.
- lapcat 11mo agoIt's an open source project. What exactly are you expecting? Keep in mind that every for-profit publicly-owned corporation has many shareholders, as well as a board of directors, which is, gasp, a committee!
- jshen 11mo agoyes, but they typically hire a singular CEO to drive a cohesive vision and strategy with the check that they can fire the CEO at anytime.
- dylan604 11mo agoA committee from the beginning would definitely prevent something from really ever starting. Could you imagine Linus working under a committee to get Linux running? At some point, you do have people that need to step back. If you turn it over to another single person, they could pivot and "ruin" the product. By turning it over to a committee, hopefully, any ruinous ideas get overruled. At least in theory
- jshen 11mo agoRight, and it's TBD if that will turn out to be more or less effective. I'm hopeful, but more voices isn't always better.