[undecisive]

Yeah, certainly tickles a few neurons.

I feel like BDFLs are akin to the concept of village elders; they're not immune to corruption or scandal, but they often have this beloved status that can paper over a lot of cracks. That's probably dependant on their leadership style - the hard headed (Linus, DHH) vs the grandfatherly (Matz, Van Rossum).

Which, going back to your note on geopolitics, leads me to wonder: Is it just that more power corrupts more, or is it that (modern-day definitions of) democracy require a desire for power? I guess as the "FL" part of "BDFL" comes to bite more of the communities, we'll see better how different succession styles have different effects. I also wonder if the analytical nature of the individuals within the "populations", and inability to police defectors will mean uprisings will be more successful, either in causing BDFL attitude adjustments, or just overturning the community completely (for example, there's already a lot of momentum for a complete fork of Rails)

(Edit: having submitted this, I now see others have had very similar thoughts! Definitely an excellent conversation topic)

[fooqux]

> I feel like BDFLs are akin to the concept of village elders; they're not immune to corruption or scandal, but they often have this beloved status that can paper over a lot of cracks.

I think a lot of this is due to how so much is a scandal these days, for better and worse. (I'm obviously going to keep politics as much out of my response as possible.)

A few decades ago, people could have political views without ostracizing roughly 50% of the global population, or generally causing a ruckus at the holiday family dinner. (Obviously politics + holiday dinners has been an issue for a long time, but back then it was just something people tried to sweep under the rug. Now? Holiday dinners are getting cancelled or families are splitting up.)

It used to be that a scandal in the OSS community required you killing your wife (thinking back to ReiserFS). Now, a remark on Twitter is all it takes.

Again, I am absolutely not taking sides here. I'm just noticing a difference in the times, and agreeing that it is indeed interesting to watch.

[undecisive]

No, I agree. That said, I think a lot of that particular shift is down to a) increased individualism b) an emphasis on the healing power of personal boundaries and c) the rejection of unity as an overriding good.

People are far more happy to cling to the tribe they choose, and the tribe that has their back, over the tribe they were born to. Then, there are those who see that trend as dangerous to society (where, in many cases, society is really just a proxy for their own power or social status - ironically as viewed through their own chosen tribes more than the tribe they were born to)

That is to say, I don't think it's the political views that are splitting the families. Individuals have decided that care for each other should come secondary to those political views. I feel like there used to be a certain amount of care in the "sweeping under the rug" - it was the tribe against the world, it was protecting the family image as much as it was protecting the individual from society. These days, being a thing "in private" means being a thing alone, and that's no longer a compelling thought when external tribes are willing to embrace you.

Which probably applies to software tribes just as much as family ones.

[zahlman]

Clinging to tribes is the opposite of individualism, though, and represents pretty weak rejection of unity.

[mrguyorama]

>A few decades ago, people could have political views without ostracizing roughly 50% of the global population

This is ahistorical.

Not only was it the norm forever to ostracize entire sections of your society (protestant vs catholic and lots of other religions, black vs white, any form of non-hetero behavior, the Roma people and any form of outsider)

It often was the law

Americans shot their family members over whether we should own black people or not.

My french and white ancestors were expelled to Louisiana, intermarried with black people, and then when the US bought the french land, they introduced laws that made such families illegal.

Reagan made a hobby of publicly claiming his coworkers were communist. Thought that maybe we should be allowed to form unions? 100 years ago that was enough to get you investigated by the senate. Americans voted for him so hard the Democratic party is still floundering to have support. "We should allow unions" or "we should regulate companies" is still half-verbotten.

Do you know how many kids are still kicked out of their homes for the crime of being born gay?

This idea of "You used to be able to hold diverse opinions in public" is outright wrong. This past never existed.

Weird Christians in the US have tried to cancel things like Harry Potter and halloween for gods sake. They took a teacher to trial for teaching evolution. They made playing pen and paper RPGs a sin! When preachers molested kids, they shunned the kids

Being too chummy with another guy in public was a scandal! Being a woman who wanted an education was a scandal! Getting pregnant out of wedlock was a scandal that would tear apart families. Getting divorced was verbotten. Expressing support for social policy could get you fired, or murdered

Bush Jr literally said "You're either with us or against us" about supporting a criminal war and America pitched a globally public fit when other countries did not pledge allegiance.