hot take, FOSS
@Foxboron@chaos.social @thibaultmol Actual sustainable grassroots community building, actively engaged contributors and internal social relations, collective consideration of the values behind a project and who benefits from it. In other words, sustainable social and governance structures.
Structures that actually make space for people and their needs, and that give them a reason to stick around beyond "there is Work to be done".
Not drive-by PRs that generate more work than they remove and that function as maintainer time sinks, "tech is politically neutral" whitewashing, licensing obsessions, corporate source dumps and labour exploitation, and so on.
hot take, FOSS
@Foxboron@chaos.social @thibaultmol And Github and its model do not fit into that picture; they are entirely designed around corporate workflows, corporate needs, hierarchical power structures, and so on.
The system does not make any room for community or collective governance whatsoever.
hot take, FOSS
@Foxboron@chaos.social @thibaultmol Also, here's a concrete example of what 'making room for collective governance' might look like: whoever 'owns' a particular issue ('assignee', in Github lingo) also automatically has full moderation rights over the conversation in that issue, and multiple separate conversations can be had within its context.
