←back to thread

2024 points randlet | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.749s | source
Show context
jacquesm ◴[] No.17517514[source]
Reading that thread is like reading an actual Monty Python plot.

Guido van Rossum has given his life for this language and besides the obligatory 'thanks for all the fish' there isn't even a single person who stops the clock to evaluate what went wrong that they pushed out the person that started this all.

Instead it's 'kthxbye' and they're already dividing up the cake to see who gets to rule.

Not the nicest moment in the history of FOSS, I wonder what kind of a mess will ensue when Linus steps down.

replies(15): >>17517643 #>>17517753 #>>17517778 #>>17517779 #>>17517788 #>>17517820 #>>17517826 #>>17517967 #>>17517971 #>>17518071 #>>17518197 #>>17518212 #>>17518226 #>>17518631 #>>17518936 #
tptacek ◴[] No.17517820[source]
What are they supposed to do? Python is bigger than GvR. A pretty big chunk of the tech industry depends on it. We were probably long past the point where a "BDFL" was healthy --- not because of any moral issue, but because over the long term the market is going to dictate where Python goes and how it grows, and people should stop kidding themselves that it might be otherwise.

I don't think it's at all unseemly that people involved in the Python project respond to GvR's LOA announcement by working out continuity. As someone who has to interact with a lot of Python code professionally, that's exactly the response I'd hope for.

replies(3): >>17517848 #>>17517893 #>>17518018 #
jacquesm ◴[] No.17517848[source]
Some root cause analysis would be nice. Because whatever went wrong that caused GvR to step down isn't solved and the future structure whatever form it will take will most likely not be quite as resilient against this as GvR was.

Also, an apology for the way this turned out would be seemly.

replies(3): >>17517889 #>>17518058 #>>17518398 #
tptacek ◴[] No.17517889[source]
Whatever apology GvR is owed, it's none of my business. The post-BDFL continuity plan is super relevant to me, but I can say with some confidence that GvR does not need me as a witness to whatever psychological remediation he may or may not need for the assignment expression debacle. It's not my place to psychoanalyze him, and he rather clearly didn't ask me to.

So again: why, as a professional who interacts with the Python ecosystem, am I interested in anything more than what is already happening on the thread?

replies(3): >>17517973 #>>17518466 #>>17519083 #
1. shawndrost ◴[] No.17518466[source]
Why you should care: it's relevant to the post-BDFL continuity plan, because 1) the stressors that pushed GvR out will also act upon the new decisionmakers, 2) those stressors can be reduced, and 3) change-of-control is innately risky and we should be extra-worried (at this moment) about existing, important stressors.
replies(1): >>17518483 #
2. tptacek ◴[] No.17518483[source]
I care that those concerns are being addressed. I do not care whether they're addressed in public in a way designed to mollify any particularized concerns I might have, because I am not a member of the Python core team, and they don't owe me that.
replies(1): >>17518706 #
3. shawndrost ◴[] No.17518706[source]
I mean, nobody on the py-committers threads owes you anything. But OP was observing an apparent gap in their thinking -- and indirectly, stating there is a toxic element of culture that destroys leadership morale, which nobody is (publicly) commenting on.

I think you'd say the same, if you agreed that culture was a solvable contributor to GvR's exit (even if you, like me, knew he was leaving for market reasons eventually). By analogy, if 'dang said "I'm leaving yall, this sucks, elect a replacement" and we were like "cool who's it gonna be". That would be an error, and I think you would be at the top of the comment page saying "Also, let's all make some changes so that the next 'dang doesn't have a miserable life."