I don't share @nexxylove's apprehension, but no specific governance model is inherently more or less "open", really.
-
-
they've clearly expressed intent, which is good, but that's all. Action takes longer, and it's not a competition.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I've been on enough "open governance" boards and in enough rfc threads to not be so casually unskeptical.
6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @izs @nexxylove
like
@wycats has a long history of positively run projects with this kind of governance. I'd be shocked if it were a sham.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I would be as well! But remember, a system does not need all actors to be bad for the system to be bad.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @izs @steveklabnik and
and "open" is a fuzzy term. E.g. Joyent's "node advisory board" was explicitly closed, but in many ways…
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
"open" is fuzzy, but Ember/Rails/Rust/Postgres-style RFC-based governance is less fuzzy
2 replies 3 retweets 8 likes -
agreed. But I have come to think that "open" is a less than useful term re gov models.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
governance is about power, direction, and culture. Openness is one tiny aspect of that. Informs little.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
it's more interesting to ask which decisions get made, which jobs get done, by whom, and who is excluded.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
yep! The RFC process is about making "the core team" go through the same consensus process as other contribs
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.