On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 9:16 PM Matt Farina <matt.far...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This whole conversation illustrates the difference between open source and > open governance. Go is open source but the governance is controlled by > Google. This compares to something like Kubernetes that is both open source > and open governance. > I'm not sure whether I agree with this characterization. There is, AFAIK, approximately no codified process in the Go project that would single out Google or Google Employees. To a degree, that's because there aren't that many codified processes and the ones there are, are kept a bit vague (in favor of a consensus-driven culture). But also, I'd argue, because the process isn't actually that closed. Ian outlines several reasons why it isn't - and why it might appear that way nevertheless. But if, hypothetically, Google would successfully hire anyone doing core-team-level work on Go and if, hypothetically, anyone working on Go would immediately lose interest once they don't work at Google anymore, you'd end up in a world where a) anyone in the Go team works at Google, but b) I would find it hard to claim the governance isn't open, as anyone can just do the necessary level of work and become part of the Go team. Just like in an "open governance" model. i.e. you'd end up with "you work at Google because you are a decider for Go", not with "you are a decider for Go because you work at Google". So, the question is how far these hypotheticals deviate from reality. And that's just hard to talk about in any founded way, because we don't have a lot of obvious examples of people either not accepting an offer to work on the Go team fulltime *or* quitting Google and then stopping (or not stopping) to be on the Go team. Now, there are some ways in which processes are more or less Googler-specific. AIUI the proposal review meeting is internal only, for example. But AIUI, no one has yet excluded the possibility of opening that up to non-Googlers who are still qualifying… i.e. it's not *codified* as being Googler-specific, it just never came up that a non-Googler qualified for an invite. Anyway, as I said: I genuinely don't know whether I'd consider Go open governance or not. But, TBQH, the assertion that it's *not* should at least address why Ian's points aren't convincing (because in its essence, that question is *exactly* what he was debating pretty in-depth). Should Go be open governance? It sounds like this is a question some want > to discuss. Open governance is just a different topic than open source. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "golang-nuts" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/a6669e65-acd5-47bc-bdf2-d2cbe3c3d205%40googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfHCdNSHS7ead01DoxZ4q0Wc4w38%2B29T0jFy6KeECLX4RQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
