2020年/02月/18日
BDL模型还合适吗？
The BDL model is one of the oldest forms of open-source governance. It dates to the early days of open source, when much of the work was done by one person or a handful of people. Three of the most famous examples of open-source BDLs are Linux inventor Linus Torvalds, Larry Wall, the creator of Perl, and, until recently, Guido van Rossum, creator of the Python programming language.
BDL 模式是最古老的开源管理模式之一，可以追溯到开源的早期阶段，当时开源软件大部分的工作都是由一个人或少数几个人完成的。BDL 最有名的人物有：Linux 之父 Linus Torvalds ，Perl 之父 Larry Wall ，以及目前已经退位的 Python 之父 Guido van Rossum 。
The Pros and Cons of the BDL Model The BDL model for open-source development offers some distinct advantages. For one thing, the BDL provides a singular vision of the product. Products developed by committee are notoriously bland. Groundbreaking products often come from a visionary leader.
Moreover, communities can be disorderly — messy even — especially when there are competing agendas or points of view. There are time-consuming arguments and discussions without purpose. Compromises, even healthy ones, can leave important issues unresolved. The BDL model avoids those problems, because the benevolent dictator has the final say and can resolve conflicts by making unilateral decisions.
On the other hand, there are serious problems with the BDL model.
One issue is that benevolent dictators have an outsize influence on their open-source projects. A misstep by the BDL, such as allowing a bad or useless feature into the project, can unnecessarily consume resources and have adverse effects on the software.
Group dynamics can also be problematic in a BDL project, because the BDL sets the tone. A BDL who is mean or abusive or weak or obsessive can drive away talented contributors and push the project off a cliff.
The BDL model is contrary to the very idea of free and open software. Even projects with the best BDLs are by nature undemocratic. Indeed, the word “dictator” is, of course, the very embodiment of anti-democratic governance. No matter how much freedom the BDL allows project contributors to have, that one individual will still have the final say on the project and the product. In this case, the title — dictator — says it all. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.
BDL 模式的优劣势也很明显，“仁慈的独裁者”通常能以独特的视觉为产品提供发展方向，管理委员会开发的产品通常比较平淡，突破性的产品通常来自有远见的领导者。此外，社区可能会因为某些争议而出现混乱，开发者会进行一些无用且耗时地争论，这时“独裁者”可通过做出单方面决定来解决冲突。
不好的是，“独裁者”对他们的开源软件的影响太过巨大，如果让贡献者觉得该软件已经被设定了某种基调，他们可能会远离。而且当“独裁者”出现决策失误时，也可能造成不必要地资源消耗并对软件产生不利影响。
BDL 模式其实与开源软件的理念有点背道而驰，即便是拥有再优秀的“独裁者”，这种软件本质上也是不民主的。BDL 模式主导的软件，与“独裁者”的个性的联系过于紧密。说白了，再仁慈的独裁者，他仍然是独裁者！
Python和Linux已经出现了避免BDL的趋势