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

Jenniferplusplus

@smallcircles How does the project accrue all of this attention? That's not really something that happens on its own

smallcircles (Humanity Now 🕊)

@mir I agree, if the #BDFL 'governance model' as it were, were well enough communicated so that everyone involved has the right expectations of the project.

Probably the best case study of where expectations clash, is the #Mastodon project. It can be very frustrating to see the "important" feature (to you) sit idle on the backlog for 5 year, or to see the maintainer rewrite your PR's rather than merge them directly.

Yet, while not communicated properly, Mastodon is clearly on a BDFL track.

smallcircles (Humanity Now 🕊)

@ireneista I added some more polls drilling a bit deeper into the subject.

smallcircles (Humanity Now 🕊)

@laxla I agree.

This is about the criticism one gets from outsiders who expect you to set a certain path with your project. One aligning with their path.

So there's this implicit boundary where a hobby project crosses over into something where people slam the #BDFL label on and start making all kinds of demands.

When are those justified, and when not? That was the gist of my toot about.

Laxystem

@smallcircles they're never justified because you don't deserve anything beyond what the license, a legal and ethical contract, describes.

abekonge

@smallcircles good questions. I think there is an interesting conundrum here. On the one hand most people value personal freedom - and whatever you do that does not do harm is fine. But when you offer something up for usage in the commons and at the same time insist that you have all the power - there is a potential conflict. I think we culturally have a weird obsession with ownership and absolute power over the thing. In another view it is mad to expect to be able to own anything that is shared. And maybe it’s this madness that leads to conflict. …

smallcircles (Humanity Now 🕊)

@pixelcode

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.