Let's zoom in on a particular area of the commons: the movement and their deliverables, where a strong credo dominates. The noble focus is on offering open technologies, software and systems. But in their quest to uphold the overlooked aspect is . The ability to not only sustain oneself, but also by extension the creative one is part of. The commons is an entirely chaotic grassroots environment with very specific social dynamics that are not properly accounted for. Instead top-down "herding of cats" governance models that work in regular business environments, are attempted. These may work, but only in small organizational settings, and NOT at scale where they break down.

FOSS in this definition is NOT commons-based. For that we need where FOSS is the deliverable and initiatives the engines of delivery, (Free software development lifecycle) supply chains.

coding.social/blog/reimagine-s

0

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://social.coop/users/smallcircles/statuses/116136189819727192 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)

@torgerosTorge Rosendahl for sure! There is nothing I disagree with in what you say. It is just that there are many intricate forces and aspects to take into account where it comes to (F)OSS, 'world improvement', and transitioning to a society that is able to live sustainably with its environenment / has a future.

Btw, I am talking against the backdrop of what I was just posting about (and which may have led you to find this toot).. social.coop/@smallcircles/1161

My general argument, I guess, is that we tend to dictate way too many virtues to the fact that something is (F)OSS. Software freedom is a great quality, but only one piece of a larger puzzle.

If we drop the towel after until we won't be able to let our work bring most benefit to society, in a direction beyond festering

0