On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 09:59:39AM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le 20/07/2018 à 01:47, Victor Stinner a écrit :
What is the image sent to contributors if we create a subgroup inside core developpers called "council"? What if we elect a new BDFL *for life*? Does it mean that even core developers judgment are no longer trusted, only the council decision matters? What about people outside in the insider group of cores... regular contributors? Will anyone still listen to them?
That's a very good point, I think. Creating intimidating structures may not help attract new contributors. A BDFL is intimidating. Depending on its name and powers, a council or collegial body can be intimidating too (I'd recommend against naming it "Council of Elders", which IMHO sends the wrong message).
Perhaps we could call it the Pythonic Inquisition, whose three weapons are experience, intelligence, the PEP process, and a fanatical dedication to backwards compatibility, and absolutely no braces.
*wink*
Please be explicit: what message do you think it sends which is the wrong message?
I think that the messages sent include:
there is someone in charge;
this is a meritocracy;
you too could get into the council, someday;
but you aren't in it yet;
trust and responsibility comes in degrees;
and must be earned, not just granted to random people on the Internet because they ask for core developer rights;
the evolution of the language is driven by reasoned argument, not popularity contests.
We've had a BDFL for a quarter of a century, and Python has done pretty well, possibly by far the most popular programming language not driven by a corporate owner or patron (and more popular than many languages which do have corporate owners). Of course it is impossible to prove a negative, we cannot dismiss the possibility that Guido-as-BDFL has been "sending the wrong message" for two decades, scaring off contributors and acting as a drag on Python's success. But I doubt it, and I doubt that a new BDFL or Council or Triumvirate would do so either.
-- Steve