3 ms·
The problem with open-source is that reaching responsibility or leadership positions requires as much office politics, or more, than normal corporate jobs. When
by concinds 4y ago
The problem with open-source is that reaching responsibility or leadership positions requires as much office politics, or more, than normal corporate jobs. When a leader is incompetent, you can't talk to his boss, stirring up the community is the only way to cause change. But then you get accused of "lacking civility". Wikipedia is another example of this, where the Foundation is notorious for its flaws and for not caring about what the community thinks. "Respectful" criticism gets zero attention since people assume it must be minor, so you get backed into a corner of needing to "create some fuss" if you want to cause any change. I doubt you'll find any historical movements that actually impacted things and couldn't be called "abrasive," that's just needed to make up for power differentials.
- FeepingCreature 4y agoOur "making up for power differentials", their "abandoning civil behavior"... Not sure how I'd define the difference? There's an approach I've seen some people take where they ask "how are we supposed to win without playing underhanded?" Well, maybe you aren't. That's why the right to fork is sacred. Nobody can ever stop you from doing your own thing. It provides an escape hatch; no project disagreement is ever truly urgent, because the worst thing that can happen is that other people don't go along with what you want.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago> stirring up the community is the only way to cause change. But then you get accused of "lacking civility". Exactly this. This is the key point of every community, you can't have them without conflict. If you ban conflict, you ban the social, collective, aspect and it becomes a corporate project with bosses and employees.