"For example, a project can put extra effort into making it easy for non-technical users to
report bugs or have conversations with support staff and even with developers . This wouldn’t
necessarily be a good use of resources for all projects, but it could be for a project that
prioritizes user engagement, or prioritizes conversion of individual users (as opposed to
organizationally-motivated users) into contributors ."
Page 9, Open Source Archetypes
"In general, the larger the audience for a given piece of software, the less likely it is that the users who engage with it as an open source project will be representative of the user base as a whole. However, the slope of this curve can be influenced by choice of archetype."
Also from page 9 of Open Source Archetypes.
@staticsafe I've been thinking about this all day and I'm really glad you're going to write about it.
@staticsafe @Gargron BDFL works great for software but less so for ecosystems/standards. Like when Python goes in a weird direction, the community can't really use their own incompatible version of the language, but everyone can fork or duplicate Mastodon easily.
I guess protocol/standards are also *easier* to evolve democratically too (way less surface)
Forking for governance Show more
@staticsafe this is why we're forking, btw, for governance.
I spent a year trying to establish proper governance models with Mastodon, and at the end I kind of just got kicked to the curb, so figured I'd try it out and see who was with me. A surprising number of people wanted to join.
staticsafe's personal Mastodon instance.