I feel like I'm gonna get into a lot of trouble if I keep asking this question.
-
@mcc @polotek I think the above captures this well.
There are dozens of existing projects in the Fediverse. Why did the Social Web Foundation decide to only invite three of the long term projects that have existed in this space?
And did the people who started FediForum (who were new to the space) reach out to any of the people behind the projects of the Fediverse? From my vantage point of talking to the people who work on lots of those projects, it sure didn’t sound like it.
As for whether it is truly volunteering: for a lot of projects, it truly is. Many of the projects in this ecosystem are developed by people in their spare time and they’re happy with that. But there’s also a reason I included the “(or grant supported)” paraenthetical, because by and large the projects which have people working on them full time are receiving a lot of funding from grant giving orgs.
Realistically what this comes down to is that a lot of people keep setting up organizations and things around the fediverse but if they’re talking to the people who’ve been building it they’ve certainly not been talking to many of them.
-
-
Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon:replied to Audubon Ballroom last edited by [email protected]
@blackunityoverdisagreement @polotek
I don't name names or link links because I don't want people to think I'm taking a side, or that they have to defend themselves. I want people to move on from these things, because I GET why people are mad about the things they're mad about, but I don't like that the go-to method for resolving them seems to be "have a big public fight" or "call out the other minority server on FediBlock."I don't want us to infight, I want us to think about what we're doing when we fight, and try harder to get along.
-
@erincandescent @mcc @polotek it was on me to get companies and Open Source projects on board for launch.
It sounds like you think there are some others that have the financial and time resources to dedicate to Fediverse-wide projects.
If you have some specific ideas for groups I should reach out to, lmk here or DM. Otherwise, I'll keep working on it.
-
@polotek I don't know if I'm missing something, but I don't think the quoted post comes down to money. I think it's more about their work being valued and about corporations not overstepping and taking over the things they built. FOSS contributors from what I've seen do care a lot about their work but not usually in the sense of making money. Money seems to be at times introduced as a matter of survivability (of the project or the individuals).
-
@mothwaves I was talking about the specific phrasing of viewing themselves as "volunteers" and how that falls directly in line with other people making decisions without them. Volunteers are generally not consulted when it's time to do business. If people want that to change, perhaps they should start by viewing themselves and their position differently.
-
@polotek Ahh, that makes sense. I think that probably has something to do with differing perspectives on the ownership of labor. The FOSS community is not entirely leftist but it is really leftist in values and goals at the end of the day, and it attracts a lot of people with those values and goals. I think that makes it so that volunteer work is seen as still owning the work that is done.
There is also something to be said about the peculiar position of software where the work done on it is intrinsically connected with the direction and design of the project in question. Most volunteer work can easily be led by one group and labored by another but software is slightly more intertwined (even if designing and programming software are two very different activities, my point is you need developers for both). -
@mothwaves
> I think that makes it so that volunteer work is seen as still owning the work that is done.This is not leftism.
> the work done on it is intrinsically connected with the direction and design of the project in question.
This is definitely true. And what we see is that usually another group wants to influence the direction and design of the project. And when they are better organized and not contemptuous of users, people will follow them.
-
@polotek
> This is not leftism.
Fair. I was more saying it was aligned to common leftist values but I don't really think it's applicable when talking about "volunteering".
I guess it would be simpler and probably more accurate to just say that most developers even for open-source are still deeply ideological and controlling of the direction their software takes. Linus is a good example of this, he is very much the person that controls the direction linux goes in. Arguably, I think developers are right to take control of the direction of their efforts, but obviously, by the very nature of open-source, if someone considers they're not doing a good job, they are within their right to try and steer it in a different direction.
I think corporations are absolutely not the right people to do that, though. -
@mothwaves well, it turns out they do think they are the right people. And they have money. And they actually take action. These things ensure that they are going to win this argument almost every time.
-
@polotek Well, yeah, that is sort of the thing. Everyone thinks they're the right person, especially companies, they sort of create around being the steward of whatever product they are selling.
Companies do often win the conversation, it's why fedi is so small and Instagram, Twitter and the rest of its ilk is so big. Of course, usually at some point money drives the better interest of everyone else right into the ground and so we're back to making something new. It's why I think it's especially reasonable to be wary of corporations. Hell, the entirety of the copyleft part of open-source is entirely designed to keep companies very far away from foss software, to differing levels of success. -
@mothwaves I understand what you're saying. But I'm saying something different. I don't think we have learned to be wary of corporations. We continually leave the things that important to us open to be co-opted by them again and again. And we refuse to learn what mechanisms we might use to actually protect what we care about and make it sustainable.