Comment by direwolf20

1 month ago

This is relevant. Every project he's worked on has been a dumpster fire. systemd sucks. PulseAudio sucks. GNOME sucks. Must the GP list out all the ways in which they suck to make it a more objective attack?

2 comments

direwolf20

dang 1 month ago

This is not about the person being attacked, it's about what this kind of thing does to us as a community. It's not what the site is for, and destroys what it is for.

0xbadcafebee 1 month ago

My comment was not a personal attack. But I can rephrase it if you want it more in the spirit of the guidelines. Here we go:

  I'm interested in what Amutable is building, but I'm personally uneasy about Lennart Poettering being involved. This isn't about denying his technical ability or past impact. My concern is more about the social/maintenance dynamics that have repeatedly shown up around some of the projects he's led in the Linux ecosystem - highly centralizing designs, big changes quickly landing in core technology, and the kind of communication/governance style that at times left downstream maintainers and parts of the community feeling steamrolled rather than brought along. I've watched enough of those cycles to be wary when the same leadership style shows up again, especially in something that might become infrastructure people depend on.

  To keep this constructive: for folks who've followed his work more closely than I have, do you think those past community frictions were mostly a function of the environment (big distro politics, legacy constraints, etc), or are they intrinsic to how he approaches projects? And for people evaluating Amutable today, what signals would you look for to distinguish "strong technical leadership" from "future maintenance and ecosystem headaches" ?
  
  If anyone from the company is reading, I'd be genuinely reassured by specifics like:
   - a clear governance/decision process (who can say "no", how major changes are reviewed)
   - a commitment to compatibility and migration paths (not just "it's better, switch")
   - transparent security and disclosure practices
   - a plan for collaboration with downstream parties and competitors (standards, APIs, interop)
  
  I realize this is partly subjective. I’m posting because I expect I'm not the only one weighing "technical upside" against "community cost," and I'd like to hear how others are thinking about it.

If you don't think that's a community opinion, it's at least an AI's opinion, since all I prompted it with was "rewrite my comment to follow the HN guidelines"