undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthrow0101b9mo ago0 comments

> While I cannot agree nor disagree on the quality of BSDs (haven't used one in 20 years), I find it funny that in this case a design by committee is proof of quality.

I don't think "design" is correct word: organized, managed, or ran perhaps.

> The FreeBSD Project is run by FreeBSD committers, or developers who have direct commit access to the master Git repository.[1] The FreeBSD Core Team exists to provide direction and is responsible for setting goals for the FreeBSD Project and to provide mediation in the event of disputes, and also takes the final decision in case of disagreement between individuals and teams involved in the project.[2]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Core_Team

There is no BDFL, à la Linux or formerly Python: it's a 'board of directors'. Decisions are mostly dispute / policy-focused, and less technical for a particular bit of code.

0 comments

8fingerlouie9mo ago

They fill the same position as a BDFL though.

They decide what gets included in the default distribution, they set the goals and provider sponsorships for achieving them.

So yes, board of directors is probably more fitting.

And then of course you have the people with a commit bit. They can essentially work on whatever they like, but inclusion into the main branch is still up to the core team.

There was a huge debate some years ago when Netgate sponsored development/porting of WireGuard to FreeBSD, and the code was of a poor quality, and was ultimately removed from FreeBSD 13.

eikenberry9mo ago

Similar to Debian's governing structure.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse