I'm not sure there's much utility in this article. It feels like the point was mainly to dunk on Ruby on Rails and WordPress without mentioning them by name. And such dunking may be justified, but it's not particularly interesting and won't lead to an enlightening discussion.

I think it's crucial to point out, though, that Eugen Rochko's motives for stepping down were explicitly personal. He's still quite young, Mastodon itself is still quite young, less than a decade old, and Rochko could have continued in his position for some time. He stepped down because he wanted to step down, not for some selfless reason like succession planning. And I'm not criticizing Rochko for that; he can live his life the way he chooses and do what makes him happy, avoid what he finds unpleasant. And he's to be commended for the mentioned peaceful transition of power. However, there's no inherent reason why Matt Mullenweg or DHH should step down just because Rochko stepped down; their personal goals are obviously different. And Rochko behaved very differently while he was still leading Mastodon.

The author clearly wants those other leaders to step down because he doesn't like those leaders and how they behave, not because of some abstract idea of succession planning. I don't think the metaphor of a king's death is apt here, because nobody has died or become incapacitated. They've just become overtly contemptible.

▲ bayindirh 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't take the same thing from the article. Yes, it's lighter than Terence's standard writing, and a bit more closed than his usual style, but I feel that he just wanted to underline something he liked personally.

In once sentence, the blog post reads:

    Hey, look, this guy did something nice, and was honest about it.

That's all.

	▲	lapcat 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I wouldn't even call it "nice." Stepping down only 9 years after the introduction of Mastodon seems a bit premature. I wouldn't call it selfish, though some people might. Plus, Rochko did get paid 1 million euros in the transition. For all I know, Rails and WordPress already have succession plans, or if not, I'm sure they will eventually, as the founders get older. They're still relatively young.

▲ shkkmo 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The author clearly wants those other leaders to step down

I think you are putting words in their mouth. They could easily have explicitly called to those leaders to step down.

> He stepped down because he wanted to step down, not for some selfless reason like succession planning.

The praise of Rochko isn't for stepping down. The praise is for the way he setup sucession and governance as he did so.

>> Simply, we are going to transfer ownership of key Mastodon ecosystem and platform components (including name and copyrights, among other assets) to a new non-profit organization, affirming the intent that Mastodon should not be owned or controlled by a single individual.

▲

lapcat 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> I think you are putting words in their mouth. They could easily have explicitly called to those leaders to step down.

Let me quote from the article: "The last year has seen several BDFLs act like Mad Kings. They become tyrannical despots, lashing out at their own volunteers. They execute takeovers of community projects. They demand fealty and tithes. Like dragons, they become quick to anger when their brittle egos are tested. Spineless courtiers carry out deluded orders while pilfering the coffers."

Also, from a comment by the article author: "I feel that part of the problem with WordPress and Rails is that that there is no model for replacing poor governance." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45980607

I don't think my interpretation is a stretch.

> The praise of Rochko isn't for stepping down. The praise is for the way he setup sucession and governance as he did so.

Was there a Mastodon succession plan before Rochko unexpectedly stepped down? I'm not aware of one. And how do you know that Rails and WordPress don't already have their own succession plans?

▲

shkkmo 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> I don't think my interpretation is a stretch.

It isn't charitable and I don't think it adds to the discussion.

> Also, from a comment by the article author: "I feel that part of the problem with WordPress and Rails is that that there is no model for replacing poor governance."

He is explicitly calling out the lack of a governance replacement model, not calling out the failure to choose to step down by those leaders.

> Was there a Mastodon succession plan before Rochko unexpectedly stepped down?

No, but there should have been. What if he had been hit by a bus?

Not having governance and plans for sucession means that the only option for change is "non-peaceful" which means that when people think a change is required there will be problems. I would argue that many of these problems in these projects is caused more by this than by the particlar bad leaders.

	▲	lapcat 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> It isn't charitable I think it's accurate. What's inaccurate about it? Moreover, I think the article author would call for those leaders to step down if he thought that would be effective. After all, he called them "Mad Kings" and "tyrannical despots." Do you think the author wants Mad Kings to remain in power??? But of course the Mad Kings have no desire to step down, which is why forcible replacement would be the only option. > He is explicitly calling out the lack of a governance replacement model There doesn't seem to be any evidence that Mastodon had a governance replacement model before Rochko chose to step down. > No, but there should have been. What if he had been hit by a bus? That's my point, though. Rochko wanted to step down, which forced Mastodon to come up with a succession plan. So I'm not sure why praise is due for this. > Not having governance and plans for sucession means that the only option for change is "non-peaceful" You ignored my question, though: "how do you know that Rails and WordPress don't already have their own succession plans?"