I’ve recently been wondering about decision-making, namely how decisions are made. I had 5 questions in particular that I was thinking about where I could not quite understand why they worked out the way they did and was unhappy with the given reasons. The questions were:
- Why does GNOME switch to git?
- Should the GNOME browser use Webkit or Mozilla?
- Why has GNOME not had any significant progress in recent years but only added polish?
- Why did Apple decide to base their browser on KHTML and not on Mozilla?
- What is Google Chrome trying to achieve - especially on Linux?
If you have answers to any of these question, do not hesitate to tell me, but make sure they are good answers, not the standard ones.
Because the first thing I realized was that all of these questions have been answered, usually in a lot of technical detail providing very good reasons for why a particular decision was taken. But when reading about the GNOME git migration it struck me: There were equally good technical reasons to switch to almost any other version control system. And I thought I knew the reasons for the git switch, but they were not listed. So are good technical reasons completely worthless? It turns out that for the other questions, there are equally good technical reasons for the other answer: There were good reasons for Apple to base their browser on Mozilla or buy Opera, for GNOME to be more innovative or for Google to not develop a browser or invest in Mozilla, just none of them are usually listed. Plus, I knew that if different people had decided on the GNOME vcs switch, we would not be using git now.
This lead me to think that decisions are personal, not technical. People decide what they prefer and then use or make up good technical reasons for why that decision was taken. But this in turn means technical reasons are only a justification for decisions. Or even worse: they deceive others from the real reasons. And that in turn means: Don’t look at the given reasons, look at the people.
But apparently people will not tell you the real reasons. Why not? What were my reasons for prefering git as a GNOME vcs? I definitely did not do a thorough investigation of the options, I didn’t even really use anything but git. I just liked the way git worked. And there were lots of other people using it, so I could easily ask them questions. So in the end I prefer git because I used it first and others use it. Objectively, those are not very convincing reasons. But I believe those are the important ones for other people as well. I think GNOME switched to git because more hackers, in particular the “important” ones, wanted git. Why did it not happen earlier? I think that’s because a) they wanted to hack and not sysadmin their vcs of choice and b) they needed a good reason for why git is better than bzr to not get into arguments, and Behdad’s poll gave them one. So there, git won because more people want it. Why do more people want it? Probably because it’s the vcs they used first and there was no reason to move away. The only technical reason in here was “good enough”.
I don’t think technical reasons are completely unimportant. They are necessary to make an option reasonable. But once an option is a viable one, the decision process is likely not driven by the technical reasons anymore. After that it gets personal. With that it mind, things like Enron or the current bailout don’t seem that unbelievable anymore. And a lot of decisions suddenly make a lot more sense.
And because I asked the other questions above, let me give you the best answers I currently have for them.
- First of all, GNOME should use Webkit and not Mozilla, because the GNOME people doing the actual work want to use that one. There’s a lot of people that prefer Mozilla, but they don’t do any work, so they don’t - and shouldn’t matter. This was the easy question.
- GNOME does not have any innovation because GNOME people - both hackers and users - don’t want any. Users want to use the same thing as always and most GNOME hackers these days are paid to ensure a working desktop. And they’re not students anymore so they prefer a paycheck to the excitement of breaking things.
- For Safari I don’t have a satisfactory answer. I’m sure though it wasn’t because it was a “modern and standards compliant web browser”. Otherwise they would have just contributed to KHTML. Also, the Webkit team includes quite some former Mozilla developers, who should feel more confident in the Mozilla codebase. So I guess again, this is personal.
- For Google Chrome it’s the same: I don’t have a real clue. Google claims it wants to advance the state of the art in browsers, but this sounds backwards. Chrome would need a nontrivial market share to make it possible for their webapps to target the features of Chrome. Maybe it’s some people inside Google that wrote a browser as their 20% project. Maybe Google execs want more influence on the direction the web is going. I don’t know.