All open source software has leadership whether you recognise it or not.
The question is, is this leadership more of a risk than it is a benefit.
An anarchic leadership reduces the risk of things changing too fast that only large corporations can keep up.
But it also increases the risk of paralysis and implementing ideas that almost everyone agrees is best, because no one has the power to pursue anything decisively.
We think our way of doing things allowed us to design things from first principles and have a very minimalist and well reasoned architecture.
If you listen to us more often, you might be convinced that we are very protective of the simplicity of the core protocol, pushing most of complexity to higher layers or optional APIs, exactly because we want to build one foundational layer on top of another, as opposed to spontaneous house of cards.
Login to reply
Replies (2)
Good points, but I think you need also to SHOW that it's a open protocol. And be transparent. That is the only way to grow to a mid size protocol and bigger. A new user needs to be able to come to the protocol and see in a few clicks how it's goverened, who controls it, what the licenses are and what the evolution is. Developers will ask these questions. Ubuntu is a good example of doing this.
All corporations are subservient to the state. If you do anything the government doesn't like, any they threaten your CEO's family, what are the odds pubky vanishes overnight?