Conversation

Notices

1. ;; GNU/Girlfriend (thufie@social.pixie.town)'s status on Thursday, 04-Jul-2019 23:40:24 UTC ;; GNU/Girlfriend

   FLOSS projects which aren't open to community discussion (I don't mean controlled polling, I mean actual input on forums and issue-trackers) and structure their project authority based on some conceptualization of merit as well as "project insiders" and "project outsiders" are prime examples of how closed meritocratic systems slowly degrade themselves even if they are "open" in principle.

   The culture around these kinds of projects is in dire need of change. They can't pretend to be above the community as open projects and stay relevant compared to proprietary software, they are sacrificing their biggest advantage, their open feedback-systems. Megacorporations with proprietary software at best have some kind of help form where the feedback process is restricted severely and change is nearly impossible and exponentially slower. Why are FLOSS projects trying to emulate that?

   I'm not making any kind of personal critique, this is just a cybernetic systems observation on how FLOSS adoption stagnates.

   • Laurelai Bailey repeated this.
   • Laurelai Bailey (laurelai@mastodon.starrevolution.org)'s status on Friday, 05-Jul-2019 00:23:33 UTC Laurelai Bailey

     in reply to

     @thufie I can answer this! Its about concentrating power for themselves and reducing accountability.