zoeysaurusrex

I probably should clarify. I mean when consensus is a group that is making decisions with a potential financial impact to their employer.

Google cancelled a proposal because reasons, which will be found out in January apparently.

Maybe I just haven't been part of software development in a large enough company, but I don't think a vote of all-or-none is the best idea. This of course is just my opinion and it is based on ZERO proof. I feel like it should at least be majority rules.

My concern would be if Google would oppose something desperately needed by the community because the feature they are blocking for will benefit them in some way financially. I'm sure it's a hard case to make, but I am curious nonetheless.

I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong, but can you provide the discussions around that? I did somehow miss it. The only discussions I saw were hand wringing from people about not being involved enough, and these weren't small threads.

Thank you for correcting me.

Totally agree, I think they realized what they did once they dove into the deep end. I won't criticize them pulling that feature back, it was just the way they went about. I can't be too hard on them, I'm sure they've learned a ton about maintaining source publicly since then.

In my head, I'm imagining them furiously white boarding architecture while someone is way over-sensitive that their ideas aren't being considered. Of course this probably isn't true.

I have an active imagination.

Oh yeah, I'd count project.json in dotnet core to be an example of that already. The community was told it would be pulled eventually with no real involvement from the community.

EDIT: Or just robo-downvote me, lol instead of presenting a counterpoint.

So, I'm not saying they were wrong or right, but this is interesting to see what happens when the "consensus" is a major corporation.

I'll make a prediction now. We'll be seeing things like this happening in the Microsoft code base in a few years. I'm a huge fan of Microsoft and their open source effort, but I'm not above believing that corporate interests win in the end.

EDIT: Thanks for the downvotes, care to explain where I'm wrong? I'm sharing something called an opinion.

"The thing about that time was we were all learning how to program web apps while we were building them and there wasn’t really a standard operating procedure or anything."

I'm going to have to disagree and say 2005 wasn't all that much "wild west" when writing web apps. Maybe it was for them, but not the enterprise world.

"Vim and Emacs are still superior if you want to put the time in, and both have non-terminal interfaces."

I don't need an instruction manual to figure out how to close VSCode.

I've listened to a few interviews with Josh Waitzkin and I have to say, not impressed with him as a human being. In his case, he is highly intelligent, but it doesn't escape the fact that he's kind of a lousy human being. Go listen to his interview with Tim Ferriss for example; he talks like he's robotically trying to figure out how to sling vocabulary words together to sound smart. At once point (paraphrasing here), he says something like: "we have create a sense of agency for the kids". Not long after, I stopped listening.

Just listening to him describe his life, he's a very self important type of person.