> 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?"