> The reality is that we humans are messy and unpredictable. We don't quite know how we will behave until we have been throw into a particular situation. Open S

> The reality is that we humans are messy and unpredictable. We don't quite know how we will behave until we have been throw into a particular situation. Open Source walks a very fine line, and anyone claiming to have all the answers probably doesn't. I certainly don't. > Is it a wise to mix Open Source and money? Maybe not. Yet I also believe it's something that is just a reality we need to navigate. Part of the answer, IMO, is that F/OSS surfs the delta between the individual and the group. Projects are an individual or small team effort that, per some hand-wavy statistical distribution, have some potential for traction. The group needs stability and predictability. Hence all the pesky laws and economics that individuals generally disdain. > https://opensourcepledge.com/ https://opensourcepledge.com/ > Can individuals join? > While we've had companies-of-one join, we don't yet have a route to individual membership. We're discussing whether to add this in issue #21. Feel free to join the conversation. I have been an FSF member for years now, because if one wants output, it helps to provide input. > the solution we are focusing on is providing direct payments to maintainers Cutting out the middle-man is excellent. One could pine for more stability and predictability, but that implies some governance. THOUGHT: Maybe, as the greyhair population increases, trusted Devs who are inclined can move toward a governance council, and offer oversight of a resource pool (implying a non-Dev staff for the beancounting chores). This is one of those Herb Sutter ideas where the "difference between theory and practice may be greater in practice than in theory". But the basic idea is to leverage the wisdom of those who've Been There but don't intend to mash keys until the destructor call.