State Funding of #FOSS and Open Source: Is it a Good Idea or a Bad Idea?

The questioning over state funding of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and open-source initiatives revolves around invisible ideological debates about benefits and drawbacks. Let’s look at this from a few specific examples: #NLnet, #NGI, and the European Union (#EU), to understanding the implications and effectiveness of this funding path.

The #NLnet Foundation is a notable example of an organization that provides funding to open-source projects. Supported by private and public funds, including significant contributions from the #EU, NLnet focuses on promoting a free, open, and secure internet.

The #NGI initiative, funded by the #EU, aims to shape the development of the internet of tomorrow. By supporting a range of open-source projects, NGI tries to foster innovation, privacy, and security. It emphasizes human-concentric technology, ensuring that the future internet respects humanistic values and needs.
The #EU has been a significant proponent of FOSS, providing funding through programs such as Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe. The EU’s supports digital sovereignty, reduce dependency on non-European technologies through promoting open standards.

The is some democratization as these state-funded FOSS projects ensure software is accessible to wider groups, thus reducing the digital divide. For instance, NGI-funded projects are supposed to focus on inclusivity and user empowerment. At best, this transparency brings public overview to these processes.

There are some economic benefits and cost savings in using and supporting FOSS instead of expensive proprietary software. Funding initiatives like NGI stimulate innovation by allowing developers to build upon existing open-source projects, fostering a collaborative environment. Though, there are unspoken issues of sustainability in a pure capitalist path, thus the question of balance in state funding.

Open-source software allows for independent security audits, reducing the risk of vulnerabilities. The EU’s investment in secure communication tools underlines this advantage. Reducing reliance on a few large proprietaries #dotcons software vendors enhances national security and control. The EU’s support for open-source projects aims to bolster humanistic digital sovereignty.

For example, #NLnet’s diverse (though #geekproblem) funding portfolio highlights this limited community-driven development. The collaboration between public institutions, the private sector, and community contributors helps #NGI projects bring together diverse stakeholders to work on common goals. #FOSS projects thrive on community contributions, leading to continuous improvement and support and thus in theory community needs, though due to the dogmatic #geekproblem this is currently failing.

Funding Continuity: Projects become dependent on government funding, which currently is not stable or continuous. For example, sudden policy shifts in the EU affect long-term project sustainability. Without a sustainable funding, FOSS projects struggle with long-term maintenance and support.

Most #FOSS projects are too idiosyncratic to meet quality #UX standards. Thus, the current #geekproblem dominated process means that state funding inadvertently support meany unusable and thus pointless, subpar projects. Effective diversity and oversight of these mechanisms are crucial to mitigate this failing path.

Government involvement leads to bureaucracy, slowing down and ossifying development cycles, currently we do not work though this path well, The balance between oversight, diversity and agility is critical. With the #EU path this is a huge problem leading to almost all the current funding bring poured down the drain.

For #mainstreaming capitalism the issue of “Market Distortion”, the idea of competition raises the issue of state funding distorting “market” dogmas to disadvantage private companies and startups that don’t receive government support. For instance, EU funding can overshadow smaller #dotcons, capitalist thinking sees this as a risk that government-backed projects might stifle innovation by shaping the market landscape.

Political and ideological biases influence which projects receive funding, this is currently pushing a #blocking of the needed “native” #openweb path. How to move past this to ensuring diversity and “impartiality” in funding decisions need real work. How can we shift this “common sense” focus that government priorities do not align with the wider needs of the #openweb community and end-users. Aligning funding priorities with community needs is needed to address this concern, how can we make this happen with funding like #NLnet and #NGI?

To sum up, #NLnet are doing some good work, but this is focused on feeding the #geekproblem and building #fashionista careers, evern then on balance they do a better job than most. Then the wider #NGI funding is going into the #dotcons and #NGO mess, thus being poured directly down the drain. Over all, it’s fantastic that the #EU is funding the #openweb even if it is doing it very badly by funding very little that is native or useful.

Conclusion, state funding for FOSS and open-source initiatives, in our examples #NLnet, #NGI, and the #EU, has potential for creating real change and challenge, but this path presents both opportunities and challenges. When implemented thoughtfully, it can foster “native” paths, innovation, reduce costs, and enhance community and security to challenge the current worshipping of the #deathcults by our widespread use of the #dotcons. The question is the will and understanding to balancing this path to ensures that state funding positively contributes to the #4opens FOSS ecosystem, driving forward a free, open digital future or just leads to the capitalistic criticism of waste and distortion? At best and at worst, we see some real change and a lot of poring funding down the drain to feed some #geekproblem and build the careers of a few #fashernistas

The is much to compost in the current mess, can we get funding for shovels please #OMN

Slogan for #openweb: “Technology’s job is to hold the trust in place”

Definitions can be loose; making things overly rigid is a #Geekproblem that fosters conflict.
This is why the #4opens is about interpretation and judgment. The #Fediverse is a vibrant and active #openweb project, currently one of the healthiest “native” parts of this path.

Some “native” examples we are working on:

Principles for #OGB (Open Governance Body) Consensus and Engagement: Decisions are valid only if a wide range of people are involved, ensuring that the collective is the consensus. This prevents any single individual from overpowering the group. Power resides in trust groups, which likely use their influence positively. This #KISS is needed to maintain trust that ensures better outcomes.

Solving technology problems with trust and #4opens: These principles provide a flexible and resilient approach to technological challenges. To repeat, the key role of technology is to maintain trust. To do this, let’s focus on the social path, an example of this would be #PGA (People’s Global Action), that keeping this as a checkpoint helps block #mainstreaming attempts and maintain polite engagement.

Building and maintaining projects needs strong social defaults and hardcoding #4opens. Consistency, keep the #4opens principles at the forefront to prevent dilution during outreach. Building tech from the grassroots level, horizontally, avoids #mainstreaming “common sense” which always leads to burnout and friction. While outreach is essential, the core principles should not be compromised. Focus on community and consensus to ensure broad engagement to maintain trust and effective governance.

These guidelines provide a structured approach to developing and maintaining technology projects that are open, transparent, and community-driven. By emphasizing trust and the #4opens principles, we create a resilient and sustainable path for technological and social change and challenge that is so needed in the era of #climatechaos.

#NGI #NLnet #EU

The European Union: A “spiky” view

As a first step, it’s enlightening to look at the origins of the EU, in post-World War II. The US emerged relatively unscathed and wealthy, where much of the rest of the western world was in ruins. For the USA action was needed to maintain allies and markets against the growing Soviet “threat”, the solution was to clear the “rubble” to create energy and focus to push back at this “threat”, the Marshall Plan, pumping over $15 billion into rebuilding European capitalism, to create an anti-Soviet, anti-communist capitalist bloc in Western and Southern Europe.

With the Marshall Plan, Western and Southern Europe rebuilt capitalism, leading to the formation of cartels, trusts, and syndicates. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), established in 1951, was a precursor to the EU, created to regulate coal and steel industries across borders for maximum profits. This was a monopolist capitalist path, not a progressive internationalist path. This expanded into the European Economic Community (EEC), established in 1957

The Anti-Democratic #EU: The EU, established by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, institutionalizes #neoliberal economic policies that make it impossible for member states to transition towards socialism. These treaties enforce a fundamentalist free market economy, prohibiting state aid, public monopolies, and nationalizations.

It’s important to see the #EU as a product of the “Cold War” rather than only as the progressive force it paints itself as. It should be obvious that this temple to the #deathcult leads “naturally” to privatization and profit maximization and undermining public services and workers’ rights, that creates the messy world we live in today. For balance, there is a “fluffy” side to this https://hamishcampbell.com/tag/eu/

Yes, it’s a mess, ideas please?

#EU bureaucracy in tech funding

Tackling the challenges of bureaucracy and #mainstreaming inertia. We need to try and jump the hurdles within tech communities with for example the current pouring down the drain of tech funding provided by #NGI (Next Generation Internet). It is an obvious path we need to get right soon:

Addressing bureaucratic inertia (and native corruption) in the EU tech funding:

Leverage small wins pilot projects: we need to get some funding to shift to real alternatives, Implement small-scale pilot projects that demonstrate benefits and serve as proof of concepts. These projects gradually shift perspectives and encourage larger scale initiatives. Advocate for incremental changes rather than radical shifts, which are more palatable to bureaucratic institutions.
Engage stakeholders in collaborative platforms, we need to rejuvenate the moribund https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ to build agen the collaborative space where policymakers, activists, industry experts, and community members discuss, co-create, and refine initiatives.
Storytelling and communication narrative building to craft compelling narratives, using the existing hashtag seeds to highlight the human and social benefits of proposed changes. Use storytelling to make abstract concepts tangible and relatable.

Mediate the #geekproblem in our tech communities:

Resource allocation funding initiatives: Seek funding from diverse sources, including grants, crowdfunding, alongside the #EU institutional funding. Use this to invest in skill development to bridge gaps within the community and foster the “native” #openweb path.
Encourage collaboration across different prospectives to bring fresh paths to push solutions. Knowledge sharing, use the #4opens to clear meaningful paths to move outside the current clutter. Create platforms for sharing this knowledge, run workshops, webinars, and hackathons, to facilitate “native” learning and collaboration.
Promote open practices that encourage contributions from a wide range of participants, not just the core tech-savvy individuals. Experimentation Spaces: Create spaces for experimentation where failures are seen as learning opportunities rather than setbacks.

Bridging the Gap Between EU Bureaucracy and Tech Communities:

Dialogue and advocacy: Establish regular dialogues between tech communities and EU policymakers to discuss challenges, share insights, and co-develop solutions. Use projects like the #OGB to build up tech ambassadors and liaisons who can effectively communicate this divide.
Develop joint projects where tech communities and EU bodies work together on common goals, such as digital transformation, data commons, and open internet standards. Learn from the “native” hackerspace movement to create innovation hubs that serve as collaborative spaces for tech communities and policymakers to experiment with new ideas and technologies.

In conclusion, the journey to shift meaningful initiatives within the #EU and overcome the #geekproblem in tech communities involves activism leveraging small wins, engaging wider stakeholders, using community advocacy, and fostering inclusive and collaborative #openweb environments. These are a path to shift the resources of bureaucratic institutions while overcoming internal #geekproblem challenges, ultimately driving the positive and impactful change that is so obviously needed.

#NLNET #NGIzero

A European Future

Changing the European Union (#EU) to be more competent and progressive on social and tech issues requires concerted effort and engagement from all the stakeholders, including activists, citizens, civil society organizations (#NGO), policymakers, and Eurocrats. I outline some #fluffy strategies for driving change within the EU:

Engagement and Advocacy: Citizens and civil society organizations can engage with EU institutions through advocacy efforts, lobbying, and participation in public consultations. By pushing concerns, proposing solutions, and advocating for progressive policies, grassroots movements can exert pressure on policymakers to prioritize social and tech issues.
Policy Innovation: Grassroots and “organic” experts in the fields of social and technology policy can develop and promote “innovative “native” policy proposals that address emerging challenges and needed change. This includes regulations that protect the #4opens paths, promote community, and foster #KISS technological innovation reasonably.
Transparency and Accountability: Promoting transparency and accountability within EU institutions to ensuring that decision-making processes are open, inclusive, and accountable to the people. This involves pushing for #4opens in policymaking, access to information, and mechanisms for holding people and policymakers accountable for their actions.
Capacity Building: Investing in capacity building initiatives enhances the knowledge and expertise of policymakers, civil servants, and “grassroots” stakeholders involved in shaping EU policies. This includes shifting funding, training, resources, and support to enable all stakeholders, focusing on the grassroots, to effectively engage with complex social and tech issues and develop evidence-based policy solutions.
Coalition Building: Building coalitions and alliances among diverse spiky and fluffy stakeholders amplify voices and increase collective influence on EU. By forging partnerships across wide sectors, groups and organizations leverage their collective strengths and resources to drive the needed systemic change.
Public Awareness and Education: Raising people’s awareness and educating citizens about social and #FOSS and #dotcons tech issues is essential for building progressive policies and initiatives. This includes conducting #DIY public campaigns, organizing #4opens educational events, and leveraging grassroots media and networks to inform and mobilize the people around key issues.
Participatory Governance: Promoting participatory governance within the EU enhances peoples engagement and democratic decision-making. This includes establishing networks like the #OGB for public participation, citizen assemblies, and deliberative processes for people to contribute to policy development and decision-making.
International Collaboration: Collaborating with international partners, organizations, and networks to amplify efforts to drive change within the EU. By sharing “native” practices, knowledge, and coordinating advocacy efforts at the international level, stakeholders strengthen their collective impact and influence the needed global policy agendas.

Overall, changing the EU to be more competent and progressive on social and tech issues requires a grassroots approach that involves activism, engagement, advocacy, policy innovation, transparency, capacity building, coalition building, public awareness, participatory governance, and international collaboration. By working together in active fluffy/spiky debate across sectors and borders, stakeholders can contribute to shaping the change and challenge needed to build an inclusive, equitable, and sustainable future within the EU and wider world in the era of #climatechaos

The European Union: A “spiky” view

#NGI #NLNET

#climatechaos requires radical work

The Seven Stages of climate denial:

1. It’s not real
2. It’s not us
3. It’s not that bad
4. We have time
5. It’s too expensive to fix
6. Here’s a fake solution
7. It’s too late: you should have warned us earlier

Looking back you can see that trolls use all of these stages to deny the reality of #climatechange. With this in mind, it’s worth looking at the climate crisis and its broader implications for our liberals:

Understanding the Crisis

Climate Change Impacts:
- Primary Effects: The direct environmental impacts such as floods, storms, and droughts, species loss.
- Secondary Effects: These encompass the broader impacts like social breakdown, mass migration, fiscal crises, and conflicts and wars.

Soft Problem: Infrastructure Response

To affect the primary effects of climate change, we need to:

Invest in Resilient Infrastructure:
- Develop, diversify and upgrade infrastructure to withstand extreme weather events.
- Implement sustainable urban planning and disaster preparedness programs.
Promote Environmental Stewardship:
- Encourage policies that protect natural ecosystems and biodiversity.
- Support renewable down scaling with energy sources and totally end reliance on fossil fuels.

Hard Problem: State Stability and Security

Addressing the secondary effects involves:

Economic and Social Policies:
- Develop political and economic policies that buffer against fiscal crises caused by climate change.
- Strengthen social safety nets to support communities impacted by environmental changes.
Global Cooperation:
- Foster international collaboration to facilitate the mass migration and sharing of resources.
- Support global peacekeeping efforts to hold justice in place and prevent conflicts exacerbated by climate stressors.

Accountability and Legal Action

Prosecuting the #nastyfew is a start, individuals and groups for their direct roles in the climate crisis involves several considerations:

Legal Frameworks:
- Establish clear legal standards for environmental crimes and corporate responsibility.
- Develop international agreements to hold entities accountable for environmental damage.
Ethical Considerations:
- Ensure that legal actions are grounded in social justice and fairness.
- Avoid simple scapegoating and ensure that those prosecuted are responsible for significant harm.
Focus on Prevention:
- Prioritize measures that prevent future harm alongside punitive actions for though who are found responsible.
- Promote corporate and governmental accountability through regulations and incentives for sustainable practices and well as impotently building real alternatives.

Moving Forward

To effectively address the #climatecrisis and its security implications, a wide approach is needed:

Promote Public Awareness and Engagement:
- Educate the public on the causes and effects of #climatechange.
- Encourage community involvement in real sustainability initiatives.
Policy and Governance:
- Advocate for robust climate policies at national and international levels.
- Ensure that climate action is integrated into broader progressive security and economic strategies.
Innovation and Adaptation:
- Invest in research and development of soft and hard technologies for climate mitigation and adaptation.
- Encourage the needed adaptive practices in agriculture, industry, and urban development.
Ethical Leadership:
- Foster community leadership outside the current #mainstreaming agendas, that prioritize long-term sustainability and ethical governance.
- Promote #4opens transparency and accountability in society and climate-related decision-making.

We do need to see that addressing the #climatecrisis needs radical and balanced paths that combines immediate action with long-term planning, prominent legal accountability with widened ethical governance, and national efforts with wider global cooperation. By working and focusing on these areas, we try to work towards a sustainable future.

For a #mainstreaming view of this https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-urges-action-on-climate-change-its-a-road-to-death/

On this subject: The #EU Eurocracy are hopelessly incompetent on progressive social and tech issues – it’s our job to help them be less incompetent as best we can. The other, radical native path is more dangerous, to get rid of them, the dangers with this, which we are seeing, is the right-wing will take their place. This applies to changing most #mainstreaming institutions and people, so we are left with “challenge” as the safe path.

Revisiting the ActivityPub foundation idea

There are a few views on this issue, the “common sense” #NGO path, an example Presenting Fedi Foundation: Empowerment for SocialHub community 1

And the more “nativist” openweb path What would a fediverse “governance” body look like?

And then we have the #geekproblem path, which has been pushing the fep process the last 2 years, but I think they are avoiding the politics of actually touching this issue. Fair enough.

If the “native” openweb crew don’t move past their “left” mess issues then I think in the end the #NGO path will be imposed, It’s simply what happens, there is a long history of this outcome

The argument between structure and lack of structure is often a strawman. For example, the ogb project, that came out of the #EU outreach has a lot of structure Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody: ON STANDBY due to waiting for funding – (OGB) This is a space for working through Governance of horizontal projects – using #KISS online tools. – openwebgovernancebody – Open Media Network BUT it is SOFT “nativist” rather than the HARD structure of the #NGO “foundation” people think of as structure, it’s interesting when people can’t see this, it’s a kind of blindness, and a hard subject to talk about.

Obviously anything that works has lots of structure, the more important question is about the visibility and “native” democracy of this structure. This is a hard argument/talk to have, and we do keep failing on this, what to do? Ideas please.

It’s interesting that formal coops almost never work in reality, and when/if they do work they tend to become shadows of the #deathcult

In contrast, activist aganising works, often badly. But over all, activist organising is more successful at being an Alt than formal coops, there is a long unspoken history to back this up.

BUT our #mainstreaming always talks about formal coops, if they talk about alts at all, because they can ONLY see this shadow of the #deathcult

Activist organising is always fighting the #deathcult, so it rarely functions as this shadow. The #NGO world is always this shadow.

OK I admit with the right/left mess, this is more of a mess to be composted, ideas please 🙂

————————————–

Current examples in the UK would be the coop supermarket, which got Tesco people in to make it profitable and has soviet design sense and staffing. And the coop bank, which is so bureaucratic as to be pretty much unusable. We have banked with them a number of times. On the positive side you had the co-op wholefood shops in the 1970’s which metamorphosed into the much more #deathcult health shops in the 1990’s. Just to touch on a few. Housing coops have an interesting history, quite a few stories to tell on these.

Don’t take me wrong, I like coops, but I don’t like #fahernistas pushing them over things where we have other forms of organising which likely work better. Diversity is good, just don’t dogmatically push crap that then needs to be composted, we have enough shit to shovel without this thanks.

As ever, “don’t be a prat” is the watch word.

The mission of the NGI is to re-imagine and re-engineer the Internet

We ask that #NGI use “native” approaches and tools at future #openweb events

“The mission of the NGI is to re-imagine and re-engineer the Internet… Committed to open source (both hardware and software) and open data… Build an Internet of Trust, empowering end-users… the concept of the Digital Commons, which is particularly crucial for Europe, as it fosters equitable access to information… the transition to the future internet…”

We ask that #NGI use at future openweb events:

FOSS video streaming solution

Simple open tools for audiences chat, one to meany and one to one

A open to edit shared doc (for links and notes) for the online participants to use, for each session.

This is a #4opens basic path for people to people internet based on trust, for a European #openweb

“When it comes to important ideas that can help improve our society, there really are no boundaries. The challenge is to turn those opportunities into reality. Great ideas just come, but they are gone in a breeze as well. Let’s make good use of them.”

The quotes are from https://ngiforum2023.eu/ , https://www.ngi.eu/ and https://nlnet.nl/ lets together ask/help the #EU to be more openweb native.

———————-
The mission of the NGI is to re-imagine and re-engineer the Internet… Committed to open source (both hardware and software) and open data… Build an Internet of Trust, empowering end-users… the concept of the Digital Commons, which is particularly crucial for Europe, as it fosters equitable access to information… the transition to the future internet…

We ask that #NGI use at online events:

* FOSS video streaming solution
* Simple open tools for audiences chat, one to many and one to one
* A open to edit shared doc (for links and notes) for the online participants to use, for each session.

This is a #4opens basic path for people to people internet based on trust, for a European #openweb

NGI Zero open source funding talks about the @sovtechfund

NGI Zero open source funding
The @sovtechfund is offering grants to people who contribute to a sustainable open source ecosystem. Grants go up to €300,000 per application and cover three main topics:

1. Improve FOSS Developer Tooling
2. Securing FOSS Software Production
3. FOSS Infrastructure Documentation

With this program, the Sovereign Tech Fund seeks to stimulate an open digital infrastructure: fundamental technologies that enable the creation of other software.

https://sovereigntechfund.de/en/challenges/ #opensource
Three Challenges to Contribute Back to Open Source

UPDATE Looks like people are also arguing this point https://shared-digital.eu/statement/

We are pouring public funding down the drain agen, these criteria are feeding the #geekproblem not actually trying to take the “problem” out of our geek paths. The people who PUSH this agenda are the problem – please POINT at them and talk about this mess, thanks.

Can we get a link to the people making the agenda, thanks, will try polite conversation #4opens

I worked with the guy who used to be behind the #NGIzero account, we did good stuff with the #EU outreach.

The replacement, I have no idea who they are and getting #blocking

This is a #4opens fail.

In all these toots am talking past “people” to talk about things/social/groups and not directly to individuals, they are second in all these conversations. This is the place where social value lives. The problem is, we don’t have hardly any of this… which is the subject am talking about.

#blocking is not seeing this, addressing this, the is a lot of blocking going on 😉

Am happy to talk to “individuals” as a first step.

Pouring money down the drain, because the majority of the problems in the #Fediverse and the #openweb are social not technical – if they only fund technical parts of this culture they are feeding the “problem” and this problem is going to pour the resources down the drain.

I understand this is a hard conversation to have, we have to try.

First step is #4opens, WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE PUSHING MESS while doing “good”, step into the light please #openprocess

Ignoring this basic #openprocess is #blocking, this is why conversations are done in public #4opens

yes, I understand the fear this creates and the desire to #block, but this then makes the #4opens fail more visible if people wont to use this for the needed change and challenge if they don’t yes it’s more noise what are you signal or noise 🙂

Signal vs Nose.

I find #mainstreaming people to be actually mad and increasingly bad. When do we get more #4opens people pushing change challenge in these #openweb spaces, please?

Am increasingly seeing this #blocking as a culture of fear, or more real as a culture of fear pushed as power politics.

Am thinking meany people will be confused and likely mix signal with noise on this subject.

Who are the bad people, the powerless pushing the #4opens on the #openweb or the powerful Burocrats worshipping the #deathcult while protecting these thin careers in the #mainstreaming

If you find yourself agenst the first and defending the second, then you are the problem.

This makes your behaver noise, and what you do very likely to be more #techshit to compost.

I wonder if people understand what activism is on the #openweb any more?

You talk to people to explane why they are doing WRONG, and at the same time you push them as HARD as you can to change their wrong behaver.

This works best with the #fluffy #spiky debate as a core part of this process.

People who keep saying “why can’t we all get along”, and “wouldent it go better if we were nice to each other” and the PROBLEM blocking the activism from having the needed affect…

#SSB splintering a “commons”

Another link that is pure #geekproblem but interesting for #OMN in that #SSB is splintering https://www.manyver.se/blog/2023-04-05

@rabble is involved in another splinter #nosta

How protocols die… #SSB was a protocol that they all reallyed round, a “commons”, we now have 3 “commons” on the table. The rabble one which has hidden #VC money behind it, then this individualist one https://www.manyver.se/blog/2023-04-05 which will maybe rally the grassroots, and the original #SSB which might or might not carry on.

We don’t have a cross culture “common” any more. A clean separation of the #mainstreaming and the #grassroots. To make this relevant, the same is likely going to happen to #ActivertyPub when the #W3C “formal consensuses” is captured by the #dotcons

The enclosure of commons is always a bad path. And yes not saying #SSB was a good protocol it was not, it came from the encryptionsists, but it was a rare “commons”.

#AP is a good/bad protocol, we don’t need to do the same path. Thus, the message to #socialhub, 95% chance they will ignore it or more likely see it as weakness and attack harder, cats…

“The is currently an undeclared battle going on between the rebooted #WC3 and the grassroots (#fashernista dominated) #socialhub for power. If the libertarian cats can’t herd themselves to do something useful, like we managed with the #EU outreach – currently they cannot do this, have a feeling socialhub will lose.

Not a big problem, but a dangerous outcome for #ActivityPub as #WC3 is formal consensus which is easy to capture and control for the #dotcons – where socialhub libertarian cats have failed messy consensuses so less open to capture.

But from my view the libertarian cats are being prats as cats are… so WC3 is stepping back in to CONTROL… how to herd cats – should I try? Or keep focus on #OMN codeing is a question am asking my self?

@xxx @xxx@xxx, have tried building bridges, but no foundation stones laid on this building work. Honest question are we helping or hindering in this grassroots space?”

There is a small chance they act, we did herd cats on #socialhub for the #EU outreach. This is why I bring it up, though, think people can only see the power politics and not what am saying when doing this. Agen 5% chance of a good outcome…

Maybe this helps to make the “mess” metaphor clearer. For the #geekproblem they likely have no idea about the damage they do. Because in their terms they are mostly right. Step back to look at the wider picture, and it’s obviously adding to the mess to be composed.

The #geekproblem

Storeys of our tech http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/04/05/ssb-splintering-a-commons/ a post that give background on #SSB and its splintering as an example.

Why this matters, the #openweb is the most powerful tool for change/challenge. The mess we are in The moral depravity of virtue signalling solidarity at this time of mass murder – Roger Hallam The moral depravity of virtue signalling solidarity at this time of mass murder

A native path out of the mess people make on the #openweb

The Open Governance Body (#OGB) describes a permissionless process/structure that is open and allows the group that forms using the tools to decide who is a part of the group or not. This process can divide into a web of connecting instances of governance as a natural human process of group formation. The #OGB emphasizes that there is no exclusion and always diversity, making it a natural fit for the #fediverse.

The #OGB also shows that if people are stupid and focused on individualism, each governance instance will have one member and no power. To gain power, people have to work together, which is built into the code. The #OGB emphasizes that hoarding power is limited, and it flows through the community, energizing and solidifying the community and building horizontal power to challenge/change vertical power.

The #OGB focus is on the importance of keeping things simple (#KISS) and that some people will try to push for existing power structures before democracy. However, as the process is permissionless, it is not possible to stop them from doing this. The #OGB emphasizes the need to do better, and that being native to the #fediverse is a big help in this regard.

The #OGB emphasizes the importance of recognizing where power comes from in the context of the #fediverse. The fediverse operates differently from corporations, governments, courts, and police, and it is important to think and build with this difference rather than trying to drag the fediverse back to the #mainstreaming path.

The #OGB builds from the #fediverse works because it is different, and it is easy to forget this important thing when #mainstreaming agendas grab and hold. The #OGB suggests that the missing question in almost all conversations is “who are we empowering,” and emphasizes the need to do better in alt-tech.

The #OGB notes that there are problems in alt-tech and suggests that starting with the #4opens would remove 90% of the mess, revealing the real potential for good outcomes. The #OGB highlights that doing better in alt-tech would involve using shovels to make compost and planting seeds of the world we want to see.

The #OGB describes the process scaffolding for the governance body as a default effect, where the decisions on how things work will be up to the members of the body. The power of the governance body is only the power of default, and the #OGB is about removing all hard default choices and building in a small number of KISS tools, then letting the body members work out themselves how to use them.

The #OGB uses the example of #Couchsurfing, where the website redesign removed the #DIY tools active Couchsurfers had used to self-organize, leading to disappointment among members. The #OGB argues that letting members make their own process, open vs. closed, is necessary to overcome the #geekproblem and have hope for alt-tech.

The #OGB builds governance with the way, rules, norms, and actions are structured, sustained, regulated, and held accountable. this is to mediate that the #Fediverse currently has a “herding cats” governance, denoting a futile attempt to control or organize a class of entities that are inherently uncontrollable.

The #OGB codebase is not just a tool for the #Fediverse, but it can be used to democratically run any structures that have stakeholders.

The #OGB provides an example of how the codebase can be used to run a local street market, with each stallholder as a stakeholder, people who shop at the market as users, and the local council, events company, and shop owner’s association as affiliate groups. The #OGB approach and codebase will scale sideways, with street markets governed city-wide, and each of the markets becoming a stakeholder, users as users, and city-wide orgs and groups as affiliate groups.

The #OGB shaping of the “body” comes from a long history/experience of horizontal activism, where “those who do the work have more say.” https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Do-ocracy

The #OGB pushes that the bulk of the voice comes from those who run the #Fediverse, the people who run/support the instances. The people who build the tools also get a say, as do support orgs and events, and the users who will be spread widely get a say, but their power is diluted by the much larger numbers involved.

This working practice comes from 30 years of building from The Tyranny of Structureless tick box list https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody/wiki/03.-The-Tyranny-of-Stucturelessness That code being quite “anti-human” is an interesting challenge, and it’s important to figure out how to get the humane “mess” in a coding process that is based on being “exact” and in control #OGB

The #OGB project is grounded in lived experience, and it’s a way out of this mess. We cannot keep using traditional institutions. We have to stop the #techcurn if we are going to use #openweb tech for social/ecological change/challenge, and we need to think about this now.

The #OGB project is about developing better ways of having “trust” based conversations and “trust” based “governance” in the #openweb. The project is built from hundreds of years of on the ground organizing that has shaped every “freedom” we enjoy and is done in a #KISS approach. The #OGB is a #fedivers native way of working, NOT a #mainstreaming way, and it comes from directly working, setting up, and solving recurring problems at hundreds of direct action protest camps.

The #OGB focus on what we know works, as at the moment, almost nothing works for social good. The #OGB project is what is needed, a voluntary cooperative and collaborative alliance that is native to the #fediverse.

The thinking is that we need to put a stop to the #techchurn as we have piles of #techshit already to compost, that #nothingnew is a hashtag for this.

It’s not the goal of the #OGB project to create an organization that tells everyone what protocols and standards to use in the #fediverse. The #OGB project is about developing better ways of having good “trust” based conversations and “trust” based “governance” in the #openweb

To sum up, the current working models of “governance” in open-source projects are monarchy, aristocracy and oligarchy. This is the rock star developer, the coders and the funders. It should be obverse to anyone that 99.99% of people are missing from this feudalistic ideal of “governance”.

Democracy is the basic foundation of our shared modernity.

WHY DO WE PUT UP WITH THIS MESS IN TECH?

Let’s take a different path, please #OGB

Q. that is an optimistic projection

A. I have no illusion that the normal shitty behaver of fucking people over and being a prat will happen, but the codebase is designed to mediate this crap behaver for better outcomes 🙂

#OGB “permissionless” is an important word that needs some thought. The body is made up of three different, balanced groups: stakeholders, users, and affiliate stakeholders. Anybody can become a stakeholder by setting up and running an active instance, and users are self-explanatory. That affiliate stakeholders are a little more complex and are treated differently, and it’s up to the body itself to decide if they play an active and useful role.

That nothing in this is top-down, elitist, discriminatory, or undemocratic, and it’s #KISS and looks safe to the “normal world” while being native to the #fediverse and its roots. All the coding is #4opens, based on #activertypub.

With #OGB, it’s important not to get lost in the #processgeeks and their dogmatic love of #formalconsensus, as that’s a dead end and has been for the 30 years of activism and coding tech. It’s important to keep the #OGB both #KISS and human, understandable. The #OGB is native “governance” and federates in the same way as the projects it “governs”. That this approach is counterintuitive to mainstream ideas and “common sense,” but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

This approach has worked to some extent, as seen in the “#Fediverse” as a living example, working to scale small to bigger. There will be lots of “smoke,” and help is needed to keep the project clear of this mess. We have to overcome our #stupidindividualism to have a hope of a better world.

#OGB To remind you that the need for “governance” came out of a practical problem where the #activitypub community is made up of “cats” who were doing seminars outreach to powerful #EU Eurocrats on why they should be interested in #activertypub. #OGB is designed to be messy and not tidy, and it’s a “governance” of a disorganization, not a traditional power structure. “governance” can cooperate with more formal models of governance like traditional cooperatives.

The #geekproblem mess we make of #openweb funding

#NGIzero #NGI #EU It’s important to remember in #openweb tech that most funding is poured directly down the drain, all value comes from #DIY culture which is always underfunded. Would be a good idea to try to rebalance this mess. And yes, we are not talking about the #dotcons mess, that’s another subject 😉

The value we are all talking about, the #openweb #fediverse based on #activertypub is a very good example of this issue. The group that pushed through the speck only goes through the formal consensuses process because the #dotcons were not interested in owning the outcome as it had no “value” to them. The speck was done as unpaid, unfunded #DIY labour, this is where almost all value actually comes from when you lift the lid on the current mess.

The importance of #DIY culture and the underfunding of #openweb technologies. It is true that much of the value in openweb technologies comes from the grassroots efforts of individuals and communities who are passionate about creating and maintaining these tools. This can be seen in the case of the #fediverse, which was developed by a group of volunteers who were committed to creating a decentralized and open social networking platform.

At the same time, it is also important to recognize the role that funding can play in supporting the development of openweb technologies. While it is true that much of the value comes from DIY culture, funding can help to support and sustain this culture, providing resources and support to help communities. One initiative that is working to address this issue is #NGIZero, which is a program funded by the European Commission to support the development of #openweb technologies. Through this program, funding is provided to support projects that are focused on creating often #NGO focused decentralized and #geekproblem projects.

Overall, it is important to recognize the importance of DIY culture and grassroots efforts in the development of openweb culture and technologies. At the same time, we should also work to support these efforts through funding and other forms of support, in order to help ensure that these grassroots cultures and the technologies they build continue to thrive and evolve in the years to come.