Someone starts a new #FOSS project as a hobby activity.

smallcircles (Humanity Now 🕊)

If that were true, it wouldn't seem attractive to me to expose my pure hobby project codebase as #FOSS.

#BDFL is a loaded term. It conveys a commitment, and moral and ethical duties. And that for your hobby project, you bestowed as a gift to others, so they might also have fun with the code.

smallcircles (Humanity Now 🕊)

@jenniferplusplus yes, I made the third poll in the thread about that case, with a case study being masto.

abekonge

@smallcircles and maybe the expectation that you want someone to use a thing, without having agency is also a bit mad. You would not want e.g. a friendship to be based on this - or a family. Or a society. Or a workplace (!).

abekonge

@smallcircles to be fair there is a side to this that involves people expecting to consume foss projects and having free support that is a big part of these conflicts as well. The dedication to the commons cuts both ways - if you want agency and governance you’re also responsible … but I think people often do not know how to do this - and maintainers do not know how to offer this. So I guess I’m saying we need new models. (Or maybe old ones we need to rediscover :)).

Billy Smith

@smallcircles @laxla

If outsiders don't like the way that thinngs are done, then they can fork the project, and build it for themselves.

It's a hobby project first and foremost.

If the outsiders have expectations, then that's the outsider's problems to deal with, not the hobbiest.

We are choosing to share our work.

If someone doesn't like the flavour of the recipe, they are welcome to go create their own meal.

smallcircles (Humanity Now 🕊)

@abekonge exactly.

An analogy, maybe. Say I live in a small communal group where we do collective gardening. My hobby is to chop wood, with the precious axe my late father gave me.

So, I joyously chop wood for myself.. and also for my neighbors. A kind gesture.

Then neighbors come:

"We need more wood"
"I want thinner splices"
"There should be a rack for people's orders"
"I need a truckload for my friends"

And then:

"This jerk gatekeeps his wood"
"Yea, suck big time."
"This guy is a BDFL!"

unexpectedteapot

@smallcircles

Building social software *for the masses* as a BDFL is fundamentally anti-social.

smallcircles (Humanity Now 🕊)

@BillySmith @laxla

Yes, I agree this is one interpretation and it seems quite reasonable. Yet in practice the social dynamics work differently, such that in 2 years you might burn out because of all the negative sentiments and expectations placed on you.

Laxystem

@smallcircles @mir Mastodon is an exception, as it is run by a foundation, meaning it is no longer a hobby project: it gets tax cuts as it is serving the general public. And as such, it has a commitment to the public it has to fulfill.

Foundation projects cannot be managed as hobby ones.

Billy Smith

@smallcircles @laxla

Who pays attention to that?

As a creator, if people don't like the way that my work is done, then they are free to go build it for themselves, same as i did.

smallcircles (Humanity Now 🕊)

@laxla @mir

Yes. Maybe one might say that with that decision the project has entered yet another stage. Now they are a non-profit with a (more or less implicit) BDFL governance model. That is still a valid model, and plenty non-profits work in similar manner. If at least the work is done in alignment to the mission. But that can be anything.

So when was the (also implict) moral and ethical burden of responsibilities taken on?

(Not asking, just pondering)

Ticktok

@smallcircles I feel like this falls in the art/music/writing category of, "once you put it out in the world, you no long own it and people are free to do with it as they wish, but they also have no authority over you to demand you make what they want"
Glad people like it, and they're free to fork it or submit pull requests, but, unless otherwise stated, the creator is beholden to no one, even if they were serous for a while, even if they accepted donations, there is only a social contract

Laxystem

@smallcircles @mir non-profits with BDFL structures without voting out mechanisms are not ethically just imo.

You need, at the very least, to have a Council of Entrustees.

The Nexus of Privacy

@smallcircles It depends a lot on circumstances. if the person running the project describes themselves as BDFL, then of course it's accurate to describe them that way. If not, but volunteers on the project see them are acting in a dictatorial way and are demanding something different, then it'sc legitimate but I'd want to know more about the circumsnaces before saying whether or not I agree with the characterization.

Even "hobby projects" can have BDFL's. And whether or not it's a hobby project, whoever's running it can run it however they want -- it's their project! And many people think that BDFL-style organization can work better for certain kinds of projects (as long as the BDFL's making good decisions of course). But if whoever's leading the project wants to have community involvement, and the community's complaining about decision-making, it's a problem no matter what term gets used.

smallcircles (Humanity Now 🕊)

@ticktok yes I agree. Yet in practice you get to deal with negative effects I sketched. How to mitigate that?

Two thoughts just come to mind:

#CodeOfConduct should include a section on Expectation wrt the project.

#StatementOfCommitment might be a document where all the ones who have ownership of (parts of) the project state the responsibilities they take onto themself.

With those 2 documents people can clearly see where the balance is between "hobby" and "formal" governance models.

Alexandre Dulaunoy

@smallcircles It’s easy. If they don’t like how it’s done or managed, fork it and make the hard work. But the majority is usually complaining without having the willingness to do and maintain an open source/project. It’s a doOcracy nothing more https://communitywiki.org/wiki/DoOcracy @laxla

Janne Moren

@smallcircles @abekonge
At which point the wood-craving masses are free to start chopping wood for themselves.

If you set clear expectations of a communal software project then you are remiss if you don't. You effectively promised a form of shared governance, and reneged on that promise after people already invested time and effort.

But if you did not - and especially if you make it clear it's a personal hobby - then they can fork if they want, but they have little cause for complaints.

m0xEE

@smallcircles @pixelcode
Is it such a common term these days? I'm of course familiar with it, but in abbreviated form it still confused me, I even had to look it up

abekonge

@smallcircles good analogy. What if you are the only one that can handle that axe and supply wood to your neighborhood. Maybe there is a wood shop where they can buy it, but the shop clear-cut old
growth forest and are expensive and abusive.

Then you start cutting pieces that are too big for your neighbors ovens? You neighbors complain - but you insist on doing it your way. Now you neighbors call you BDFL.

Another scenario - you form a cutting group that the neighbors can join , the neighbors who can’t handle the axe join the cutting group - helps carrying the wood and make tea for you. The group decides to cut pieces that fits everyone’s ovens. You actually work less now.

smallcircles (Humanity Now 🕊)

@a @laxla

Indeed.

I intent to maybe write something about insights I gleaned [1] from this thread, on the #SocialCoding movement's forum.

This is a #DoOcracy too, where in heading I gave it the simplest possible definition: "Pick up any task, and steer it to completion".

Discuss Social Coding

Build better together and create solutions that people love

Discuss Social Coding (discuss.coding.social)

[1] See: https://social.coop/@smallcircles/113508224930993093