It sounds as if you're suggesting turning my unpaid hobby into an unpaid job where I don't have autonomy about how I do my hobby.
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2026
11 points (78.9% liked)
Opensource
6468 readers
100 users here now
A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!
⠀
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No, you absolutely don't. Governance is what destroys open-source projects. For instance, GNOME was destroyed and encrappified because of their board, for instance (a bad governance structure). Look at how IBM does governance to Wayland. That should show you that it doesn't work.
Are you the original author? If so, thanks, I enjoyed the post! It made me think. I've subscribed to the RSS feed but it returns 404 for me FYI.
My main questions is, what does platform cooperative provide that is not already provided by open standards, and do you think that governance should be tied to the protocol, or exist below it at the instance and/or software implementation level?
I think that democratic processes should exist where this is power imbalance, exploitation and no safety release valve that lets the vulnerable people freely step away. E.g., we have democracy to prevent authoritarian rule, and because it's hard to move country. We have workers co-ops and unions to prevent the power imbalance between bosses, customers and workers.
So, a co-op of taxi drivers makes sense to me, because all of those conditions exist: Uber is dominant, they own the two-sided market so it's more difficult for customers or drivers leave, and the drivers are exploited because they have few alternatives.
But, don't open source and open standards provide safety release valves that prevent such exploitation? At every layer of the stack, you can choose to swap out a part, be it client, server, instance, etc. You can choose to engage in the standards process, or you can build your own software that doesn't completely follow the rules if you want, and still take part in the network. Who is being exploited in this environment, when there are ways to jump ship from any of these?
Of course, open standards are vulnerable to capture by big players, since the user count determines your influence over the network. But, is that really a big problem? You still get the tools to build your own pocket of the network with like-minded people, like what we're doing on the fediverse now. You can still convince people to leave through argument, persuasion, freedom of association and making it easier for them to jump ship without losing everything.
On the fediverse, we already have co-ops where each user gets a stake in the rules, moderation, etc. We also have instances that are run as more of a benevolent dictatorship, but where everyone is there freely. We have single-user instances too. To me, this is the best of all worlds, because everyone can choose the governance model that suits them, and we can all co-operate together.
This is where my opinion depends on what you're arguing for. Is your suggestion to tie the governance to the protocol itself, or to push for more co-operatively run instances and software? If the latter, I'm all for it :) but if it's the former, to me that's a step backward, because we're placing a checkpoint on who can join the network that removes the safety release valves and pushes people into a democratic system that they might not agree with.
Open source is about who can see the code. Federation is about who owns the network. Cooperativism is about who holds the keys.
For me, this the essence of the argument. But I'm not quite sure what the keys are to: what power and influence do they unlock? Open source makes sense to me because the people doing the work have a say in what's happening. I'm nervous to give power to users, who are not doing work, over volunteers, who are doing work. But then, when there is funding involved, I think that naturally leads to more users having more influence, because they can always take it away if their priorities are not met. See Snowdrift Co-op for instance. To me, the biggest solution is finding a way to fund open source projects directly from users.
I think that democratic processes should exist where this is power imbalance, exploitation and no safety release valve that lets the vulnerable people freely step away. E.g., we have democracy to prevent authoritarian rule, and because it’s hard to move country. We have workers co-ops and unions to prevent the power imbalance between bosses, customers and workers.
So, a co-op of taxi drivers makes sense to me, because all of those conditions exist: Uber is dominant, they own the two-sided market so it’s more difficult for customers or drivers leave, and the drivers are exploited because they have few alternatives.
That's pretty much it. Not all products needs to be a coop. But most products would benefit from a coop. I can give you one example, imagine if all the coffee shops in your region decide to coop, they organize their prices, decide who gets which special beans, and create an app that allows the customer to not only know what kind of special coffee they have to offer. Or even provide a better engagement with it's customer base.
(And remove the "coffee shop owner" which is usually the guy who never had brewed a cup of coffee in their life)
On the fediverse, we already have co-ops where each user gets a stake in the rules, moderation, etc. We also have instances that are run as more of a benevolent dictatorship, but where everyone is there freely. We have single-user instances too. To me, this is the best of all worlds, because everyone can choose the governance model that suits them, and we can all co-operate together.
That's the point. Governance for the people who use the tool and the ~~factories~~ apps...
This is where my opinion depends on what you’re arguing for. Is your suggestion to tie the governance to the protocol itself, or to push for more co-operatively run instances and software? If the latter, I’m all for it :) but if it’s the former, to me that’s a step backward, because we’re placing a checkpoint on who can join the network that removes the safety release valves and pushes people into a democratic system that they might not agree with.
The later, more instances to be able to help each other. For example, why not the instances about art in your region and the theater be organized by both groups combined? And if this works, why not add the Anime folks. If there is trouble, split the parts that aren't following the "bigger" side, and both can co-exist.
For me, this the essence of the argument. But I’m not quite sure what the keys are to: what power and influence do they unlock? Open source makes sense to me because the people doing the work have a say in what’s happening. I’m nervous to give power to users, who are not doing work, over volunteers, who are doing work. But then, when there is funding involved, I think that naturally leads to more users having more influence, because they can always take it away if their priorities are not met. See Snowdrift Co-op for instance. To me, the biggest solution is finding a way to fund open source projects directly from users.
Think the key as a "group of people with the same intention".
A single instance of Mastodon alone won't do a thing. But the whole group would be able to make a difference. Or Piefed, I want to have an instance at home for my friends to organize the D&D games for example. This instance alone won't solve the D&D as a whole thing, but would allow for other groups to organize, maybe. (I'm stretching the point here)
Looks like I broke the RSS xD I'll fix it this weekend. Wasn't the first, wont be the last.
I'll read it later but can it be summed up into one or two sentences?
What if the people who use a piece of software, had ownership in the software. A simple (and possible example), instead of relying in a third party software for the organization of people in a given apartment hub, or group of houses. Have it's own software build with free and open-source tools. And hosted in a community server.
So the people who use it, does have the governance over the software, and if needed to enhance, the same enhacement can be given back to the open-source community.
For me, the post does neither address the question, nor the answer. What is the problem? What is the solution?
Don’t just use Mastodon. Own it. The fediverse is living proof that the technical side of this already works, what’s missing is the people side.
What's wrong with mastodon? Most people don't want to be invested in anything with it. I use mastodon once every other month. I don't want to spend 5 bucks per month or own it. I don't want to participate. I'm fine with rochko doing whatever he wants. What's wrong with it?
What’s wrong with mastodon? [...]
There is nothing wrong with Mastodon, on the opposite it's a early display of what can be done right. But yet it's a instance, owned by a few people.
Most people don’t want to be invested in anything with it. I use mastodon once every other month. I don’t want to spend 5 bucks per month or own it. I don’t want to participate. I’m fine with rochko doing whatever he wants. What’s wrong with it?
Really? I would like to have a Piefed for my friends to share our meme for example, this is an smaller, yet common exemplo of governance.
I could suggest ya to read the links too, they provide extra info on the topic. Maybe this is the missing part you are feeling.
Ps.: About this,
For me, the post does neither address the question, nor the answer. What is the problem? What is the solution?
Funny, that for me it's a complete post, does have the question, insight for a type of solution and provides enough context to spark the discussion on the topic.
In practice, that would require buy-in from the apartment/house association board, since the average resident would be unlikely to care about whether or not the software was open source or owned by the association. Cost would likely be a more important metric for most members, and here a company that serviced multiple associations would likely have an edge, especially since they could also provide general support to the end-users.
If it did get approved by the associations members, then the board would then likely have to hire a third party do carry out the actual development. If you're (very!) lucky, then one or more members might be willing to do it cheaper than a third party, but that would likely only last for however long they lived in one of the apartments or houses.
I would put this scenario down as possible in theory, but very unlikely to work out in practice. The vast majority of such associations would go with an existing (closed-source) SAS provider, since that would be a lot less work and since it would survive the constant turnover in such an association.
I honestly have an even harder time seeing how it would work out for OSS in general, since most software does not come with an existing organization, nor a community that is as directly invested as residents in an associations. For most projects, the work involved in setting up and managing such an association would greatly exceed the work involved in developing the software itself, which, similarly to the above, most of the users would not be able to contribute to
EDIT: A more plausible scenario for an house/apartment association, would be somebody setting up a company structured as a co-op and then recruiting multiple associations as co-owners/customers. Is that what you had in mind? Though that of course requires that somebody has both the funds and the interest to get it off the ground, which is unlikely to be an existing association
I was going to reply, but really the edit already have the content. But the example wasn't the perfect solution, but a given idea. Something that I already did in the past, a homemade solution for the condominium of the building where I used to live. It works, a old desktop as a server, a port forwarding in the modem and you have yourself the project up.
This project solves a specific problem, we used a lot of opensource tools (from the Linux machine to the web server), and in the end it was there working, solving the issue, collecting the needed signatures for the changes in the building.
But this is my usecase, doesn't mean it's the perfect, neither the best.
My server is a single point of freedom. A co-op is a distributed one. It’s self-hosting, but with friends. It’s open source, but with a soul
I still don't understand what it's all about. It cannot be related to my own software, but for what kind of application is it meant?
I was unfair in the last reply, let me address you correctly this time. You are looking at software, software is already solved. You app, software, system is your, you can deploy whenever you want. I'm talking about the bigger community, when your software isn't yet "yours" anymore.
[...] because the moment it gets popular, someone has to pay for it, and the only people willing to pay are the ones who want to own/mine it.[...]
This is the point where needs to be own, of have the right governance, where your (as a user) desire is accounted for the system.
Hopefully this explains better.
EDIT: This is a infair comment. There is a better one.
Maybe your own software doesn't have a soul then.
And this is fine. Not all software needs to fit in this coop way.