
Adrian and Jacob retiring as Django BDFLs - adrianh
http://www.holovaty.com/writing/bdfls-retiring/
======
erichurkman
Thanks for all of your hard work, Adrian & Jacob.

------
craigkerstiens
Heres Jacob's comments as well - [http://jacobian.org/writing/retiring-as-
bdfls/](http://jacobian.org/writing/retiring-as-bdfls/)

------
nwp90
I think a project that is to continue to be relevant for the long-term needs a
vision, and that that comes from a leader. Once the leader is gone, the vision
doesn't develop. At some point the original vision will no longer fit the
changing circumstances around the project, and either a new leader and a new
vision will emerge or the project will fade away (or both, if the new vision
doesn't work).

On the other hand, if at some point the original vision is accepted by the
mainstream, the project will be successful and popular for a while, the more
so if it ceases to move on and develop its vision. Then at some point the
project will fade away as the Next Big Thing arrives.

It's not always possible for a project born of one vision to adapt to a new
reality - even if the leaders can foresee it perfectly - without starting
afresh.

Given that, and that the skills and personality needed to "maintain" a
mainstream project are different to those needed to develop and make concrete
a vision, it's good that creators move on.

To me, Adrian and Jacob moving on is a sign of Django's settling into the
mainstream. It'll stick around for a while, and then it will fade away. The
Next Big Thing is on its way.

To Adrian and Jacob - I hope you enjoy your new ventures; and thanks.

------
pekk
Since no one else asked, does this pose any threat for the future of Django?

~~~
adrianh
Nope, no threat at all. Read the second-to-last paragraph of my post.

-Adrian

------
biscotti
Thankyou for your hand in creating something I use every day

Jacobs post: [http://jacobian.org/writing/retiring-as-
bdfls/](http://jacobian.org/writing/retiring-as-bdfls/)

~~~
sp332
I guess if you're self-appointed, you can also be self-un-appointed.

------
randlet
Adrian & Jacob built a great framework, but more importantly they helped
oversee the building of an awesome community and ecosystem over the last 8-9
years. Thank you both!

~~~
kmfrk
Indeed, but I think we've come to learn that frameworks and communities don't
exist in vaccums and are probably one and the same, especially speaking as
someone who had to start learning it from scratch and ask people for a lot of
help.

It is so easy to get turned away from learning a framework, if the most
visible people in the community are assholes.

All in all, a nice reminder that programming and developer communities like
Django are about something much bigger than slinging code and reducing
performance bottlenecks - nations unto themselves. I think that'll be the
biggest legacy and impact people like Jacob in particular will leave us.

------
kabisote
How can a BDFL retire? I thought it's For Life?

~~~
rbanffy
Now you mention it, let's make sure both are safe and don't attempt anything
foolish.

------
sneak
BDFHoweverLongWeFeelLikeIt

~~~
viraptor
I don't think this is something to criticise really. For life really does mean
as long as they can do it and have an interest in doing it. Sometimes it's
really hard to let go, even if you're not involved with the project as much as
you'd like to. I'm impressed when people can make that kind of decision before
the lack of leadership/interest causes some issues.

Same reaction as to the pope stepping down - it's much better for the
community if you don't keep a position where you can't do much work.

~~~
sneak
If I was criticizing anything, it is the absurdity of such a title.

------
indiefan
You keep on using that acronym. I do not think it means what you think it
means.

~~~
leephillips
I do not think you know what "acronym" means.

~~~
andybak
A lost battle I'm afraid. Acronym in common usage now means both pronounceable
(NASA, SCUBA) and spelled-out (NSA, MPAA).

You gotta let these things go, sometimes.

------
bkeating
Thank you for Django. We still of course, hope to see you at future
DjangoCons' :D

> (But please, no more Django Pony. It's stupid.)

Hear, hear!

~~~
thezoid
The Pony logo was awesome. I wish it would've stuck more to be honest.

~~~
freework
I don't have a problem with the pony either, but there is another community
that uses the pony, and the Django folks would rather not associate with.

~~~
thezoid
What other community are you talking about? The only one that comes to mind is
the My Little Pony one.

~~~
benatkin
There's something on the fringe of MLP fandom that is often used to discredit
MLP fandom. It is really something that ought not to be brought up here, but
since I think someone will, I'll try to make an oblique reference to it: Rule
34.

For mainstream fans it's really quite simple. Some extremely talented adults
made a children's show. People of all ages enjoy and appreciate their work.

~~~
mhurron
If it exists, there is porn of it. If that's the argument against it, you
can't have a logo, or icon or image of anything, ever.

ANYTHING. EVER.

Besides rule 34 ponies isn't what is leveled against the fandom. It's the
'fact' that they're all pedophiles. Pedophiles that apparently want to
broadcast this fact.

------
thatthatis
There's an interesting political science-ish question posed by this:

Is it best to have a king first then later transition to democracy?

It would seem that kings followed later by parliament has been a very
successful model for django.

I don't know how far this generalizes.

~~~
mseebach
> Is it best to have a king

Yes.

Seriously, on the historical timescale of kingdoms, democracy is a very young
concept. It's only really after WWII that democracy got promoted to this
almost utopian ideal that we know it as today. It's not a all given that it's
the "best" way to run a society - as Churchill famously noted, "Democracy is
the worst form of government, except for all those other forms".

To dial the abstraction a little back, it's a well known mode for software
projects to die, when they cease being a labour of love of a small dedicated
team with clear purpose and direction and starts trying to be all things to
all people through "democracy"/"design by committee". Of course, plenty of
projects have survived and flourished too.

~~~
crassus
In an interview from Lee Kwan Yew, he suggests that it would be better for
democracy if people with children between the ages of 35 and 60 had two votes.
One of the common criticisms of democracy is that it promotes short-term
thinking because pandering to the people is always popular. Giving extra
political power to the portion of the population with the incentive to think
long-term might counteract that.

It seemed like this model was a hypothetical, and not something he thought
politically possible. But he is very skeptical of the one-person one-vote
model, which to be fair has crashed and burned in many places it has been
tried outside of its region of origin. Yew thinks China converting to a
Democracy would set back its economic development by a hundred years.

~~~
IgorPartola
Why that specific group? Why not the wealthy? Or the poor? Or women? Or
landowners? This sounds like a terrible idea, along the lines of the
government subsidizing home ownership the way it does in the US. The only
version of this that I've seen that I actually liked was the idea that to
declare war a referendum was necessary (can easily and quickly be orchestrated
nowadays) and that the people that vote Yes are the first to be drafted.
Naturally, only the people eligible to vote are the ones eligible to serve. I
think almost everyone can agree that war is bad, while I doubt that we can all
agree that choosing to be between 35 and 60 and have kids is the most ideal
state of being for the country/economy/the world.

~~~
rprospero
The reason why that specific group was chosen is that they represent non-
voting citizens. There are 73 million Americans too young to vote. They are
subject to laws and pay sales taxes, but have no representation in the
government. The proposal isn't a "reward" for being a good breeder, but an
attempt at rectifying that almost a quarter of the population has no electoral
power. I believe that the age range was mostly chosen to ensure that these are
parents of children who are not of voting age, but I think it would be easier
to allocate one vote to each social security number and let parents proxy vote
for their children. Honestly, I'm not sure that this is a good idea, I'm not
sure that it's any worse than just denying representation to a segment of the
population.

My other concern is your policy on referendum for war. I'm opposed to war and
would vote no on pretty much any referendum. However, I also have cerebral
palsy and am completely ineligible to serve. Do I not deserve a say in our
foreign policy? Also, the US has gone through its past few wars without
instituting a draft. My more bellicose relations would be able to vote for
this war without any serious fear of being drafted.

~~~
IgorPartola
I think the much bigger problem than the minors not being able to vote would
be the problem of apathy. 3/4 of American voters don't vote for whatever
reason. Of the 1/4 that do, most don't know foreign policy from a strongly
worded statement about Christian values. The reality is that voters are much
easier to influence than they imagine and elections are not won on the
fundamentals of the party but on the way that the team spins the personality
of the candidate.

Now, as for the referendum thing... It's not my idea, I'm paraphrasing an idea
that is twice as old as I am. I think it can be tuned and refined. The idea
behind it is that war should be declared only when a majority of the country's
draft-age people are willing to lay down their lives for the cause. What we
have now is that a few hundred people get to decide to send a small minority
that is the military into harm's way based on any reason they want. Making
people more directly responsible for declaring war is a good idea.

You are right in that we have not had draft for the past few conflicts. Also
remember that the United States has not declared war since WWII [1]. The rest
of these conflicts were not wars but "military engagements". And the military
probably does not want to get an influx of draftees who have no idea what they
are doing either. They are going to be much more likely to die in the conflict
due to lack of training, etc.

All that aside, I think the idea here is more valuable than implementation.
The idea that if you decide to do something so major as to declare war on a
foreign country, you should feel the consequences more immediately. Perhaps if
you vote yes, and the majority wins, then your taxes are raised to pay for
this war. Or maybe if you vote to raise taxes, then your are raised by double
of what you voted for one year (not for/against raising taxes, just using it
as an example of a major change).

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unite...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States)

