A practical path to balance the current “governance” mess in #FOSS

To build consensus processes in #FOSS (Free and Open Source Software), we need to apply principles from radical activism, embracing messy democracy and affinity group organization:

Messy Democracy: Encourage open discussions, differing perspectives. Keep open space for debates, ensuring that small, actionable steps are agreed upon, even if the path is not linear.
Affinity Groups: Small, self-organized teams focus on tasks and goals. These groups can collaborate but retain autonomy, allowing for flexibility and diverse approaches to problem-solving.
Focus: Start with a simple, shared purpose. Use tools like #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) to keep away from overcomplicating processes. Consensus should be loose but structured—avoid rigid hierarchies.

For example, in FOSS, we could implement a process where a proposal only moves forward if it gains a basic level of support (likes or votes), and participants have the ability to block with a justification, allowing for transparent pushback and refinement.

By fostering open processes (as in #4opens), trust is built, and solutions remain accessible and adaptable, promoting collective decision-making while keeping things practical.

To tackle the paralysis and distrust embedded in open communities after 40 years of neoliberal (#deathcult) worship, I propose a simple consensus-building process on SocialHub using the tools already available.

Proposal:

Add a prominent, reciprocal link between SocialHub and the #SWF.
Use a #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) process to ensure grassroots decisions reflect community values and paths.

Process:

Start a discussion on SocialHub based on a simple proposal.
Secure 10 likes for consensus; a block requires 5 likes on an explanation.
Review the decision in 3 months.

This approach emphasizes participation, native tools, and trust. It balances collective decision-making while avoiding bureaucratic paths that have failed in the past, such as #Indymedia’s formalized processes. By focusing on ruff, simple consensus, we can help compost the polarizing mess, rebuild trust, and empower the community to act effectively.

Let’s avoid repeating history and start a practical path to herding cats and fostering a decentralized, balanced approach! What do you think? Any ideas on how to improve the process?

The Non-Profit Industrial Complex (#NPIC): A Double-Edged Sword in #FOSS and Activism

What we call #NGO’s in the hashtag story. The Non-Profit Industrial Complex (NPIC) entanglement of non-profits, big businesses, governments, and social activism can, leads to mess we need to compost. While nonprofits can fund crucial tech and activist work, their reliance on corporate-linked foundations dilutes this, to keep receiving money, the is STRONG presser to softening critiques to align with business interests, ultimately limiting transformative change. This power dynamic mirrors critiques of the Prison-Industrial and Military-Industrial Complexes, highlighting how funding sources shape the scope and direction of activism and the #FOSS tech we build.

In the grassroots #DIY world, it’s critical to remain aware, and work to mediate these influences, ensuring that the needed systemic challenges are not compromised by external funding interests.

Let’s focus here on planting seeds of real change, beyond the comfortable narratives of the #NPIC that the #SWF has to compromise with, this is what we are doing on #socialhub

Mastodon, Meta and Threads

For people who focus on working with the #dotcons there are meany traps, and a lot of dead-ends. This is less of an issue for people fighting them, the problem here is “common sense” #blocking this second path which is a much less lucrative and a thank less task. So we will continue to have more people on the first path. A post that grew from a toot seed, I wonder if Mastodon is to Meta what Firefox once was to Google a small but significant project that big corporations can point to whenever regulators start murmuring about monopolies.

In the early #openweb days, #Firefox was seen as the open-source challenger to the #dotcons of Internet Explorer and later Google Chrome. The NGO #PR represented it as a scrappy, independent alternative, championing the openweb against the increasing dominance of corporate-controlled browsers. But over time, and a lot of funding, Firefox became a tool for companies like Google to gesture toward whenever their monopolistic practices were questioned., “Look, there’s competition! We’re not the only game in town.” The blotted NGO that Firefox became, let the dotcons who funded them, maintain the appearance of a healthy, diverse internet while consolidating power and control.

Today, Mastodon, the corporation, and new NGO projects like the #SWF are likely, unthinkingly, to end up playing a similar role for Meta (#Failbook). With #Meta’s monopoly and influence across social media, platforms like Mastodon offer a symbolic counterpoint. The wider #Fediverse, decentralized, federated model, the alternative “nativist” path, that rejects the data-harvesting, surveillance capitalism model perfected by Meta and the rest of the #dotcons. But in a world where Meta dominates user attention, advertising dollars, and social engagement, the existence of Fediverse when we push #NGO agenda, as people will, like most people did with Firefox could feel more like a token gesture toward competition than a real threat that it needs to be.

The danger on the NGO paths is that Mastodon, and the Fediverse becomes a shield for Meta, just as Firefox was for Google. With the regulators knocking, Meta points to Mastodon and say, “See? There’s healthy competition in the market.” Meanwhile, our grassroots #DIY path will continue to struggle with the challenges that come from operating, outside the #mainstreaming, on the margins, limited resources, scalability, and the constant threat of being drowned out by the sheer weight of the dotcons inflow into our grassroots #openweb reboot.

The truth is, while #4opens decentralized paths like Fediverse are vital to the change and challenge we need, not to mention keeping the spirit of the #openweb alive, they’re still pushing hard for space in a corporate-dominated internet. If we only take the #mainstreaming and NGO path, the existence of projects could be used by the dotcons to maintain their monopoly while paying lip service to “competition.”

The question, can we really afford to be only the ‘token alternative’ when the stakes are so high? Or do we need to find a way to build native projects that not only stands apart from the #dotcons, but also changes and challenges them on equal ground? It’s time to think beyond being the counterculture, and start focusing on how we grow and sustain real #4opens alternatives. If we don’t, if we cop out on #fluffy only paths, there is a danger that we’ll just keep serving as convenient props in mainstream monopoly charade.

Let’s try very hard not to be irrelevant in the fight for humanity and ecological sustainability in the era of #climatechaos and social brake down being pushed by the #mainstreaming mess making, we are composting.

The #openweb, a partnership, not a nasty walk over

On the subject of #NGO foundations for the #openweb what do they do with this money https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/262852431 this one is shutting down, and this one is in trouble https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200097189 This kinda funding could cover the costs of the #Fediverse hundreds of times over…. what do they do exactly?

The #openweb, a partnership, not a nasty walk over

We are seeing a flood of #dotcons making their way into spaces built on #4opens principles. Their arrival forces us to consider the future we want, and if we can mediate this encroachment for a better path.

Some perspectives on this:

Bridging the Gap: Some advocate that we can mediate the space between the #openweb and the incoming corporate influence. This camp believes in building bridges that allow for coexistence and negotiation between the two worlds.
Inevitable Takeover: Others feel that the corporate takeover of these spaces is inevitable. They believe we are powerless to stop it, and perhaps the best we can do is find ways to adapt.
Bunkering Down: Then there are those who think we should focus entirely on the native path, resisting and weathering the storm. By sticking to our principles and building resilient spaces, we can outlast the wave of corporate interest.
Survivalists: Surprisingly, a large number of people fall into the camp of pragmatism—those who need grants and funding to survive. For them, the path we take is secondary to personal survival, though this motivation is often hidden, leading to unhelpful or diluted activism.
Tech Activism: And finally, there’s a group dedicated to leveraging the native #openweb path to challenge the status quo. They seek to compost the current mess, using activism to bring about the meaningful change we need.
Please add more perspectives in the comments…

The #SocialWebFoundation (SWF) seems to fit into the first category—attempting to mediate between these worlds. Meanwhile, spaces like #SocialHub are a mix of the rest, where different perspectives clash and combine.

It’s clear that this situation is messy, and we’re unlikely to reach a consensus, diversity of thought is a native path. But with this clearly in mind, action is still needed. The question remains: how do we build a consensus that is necessary to take effective action on the #DIY, openweb path? If we fail to do this, as we are now, it’s the #SWF and the #dotcons who will walk the paths we build and talk about, leaving us as increasingly bystanders in our own spaces.

Let’s talk about how we have power in this narrative to keep the #openweb native path at the centre of these shifts and turns, and this is a real partnership, not a nasty walk over.

Oligarchy, Monarchy, and the Future of Governance of the #OpenWeb

Let’s Try a Right-Wing Metaphor

On the #SWF thread, https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/socialwebfoundation-what-do-people-think/4564/85

Let’s try a Right-Wing Metaphor:

Well, this playground is full of noise

In this noise, there is much sense, but no grown-up action. In a children’s playground, it is the adults who are in control, the ones who bind everything together, the ones who make the decisions.

The children play, yes, with noise and creativity, true, which can be beautiful to see.

But this playground noise has little relevance to the world of adults—the ones who do the work of change and challenge, so the children can be free to play.

OK, that’s a right-wing view. But how do we bridge this to a left-wing path? You can find grounded thinking, plans, and native projects linked from hamishcampbell.com that balance this mess we make.

Back to the right-wing metaphor: the subject of this post, the #SocialWebFoundation (#SWF), are the grown-ups. Yes, there are real questions about whether we trust the path they are taking, but it’s the only grown-up path right now. We, in this context, are still the children in the playground.

Question: Do you guys prefer the cats metaphor or the child and playground metaphor? Which one do you think could work its way around the #geekproblem and hyper-individualism (#stupidindividualism) that blocks the change and challenge we URGENTLY need?

Oligarchy, Monarchy, and the Future of Governance of the #OpenWeb

The governance model of the Social Web Foundation (#SWF) aligns with oligarchy, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few, echoing the structures of monarchy normally seen within the broader #FOSS movement. Both oligarchic and monarchic may work for some traditional organizations, but they are not native to the organic, decentralized ethos of the #openweb, which has always been more anarchic in its path.

As we reboot the #openweb to resist and mediate the encroachment of corporate #dotcons, we need a governance path that is native to our space of fluid, decentralized movement. For this, we have been developing the Open Governance Body (#OGB) as a native tech and social solution, rooted in the same principles of federation that power the #Fediverse. It’s designed to be permissionless, allowing seamless adoption across platforms, enabling a truly open and resilient network that resists centralized control that is so strongly pushing into this #reboot.

The Fediverse dilemma is efficiency vs. values. Some people argue that the Fediverse isn’t “efficient” or capable of “capturing market share” like big tech platforms. While scalability and usability are important, it’s crucial to remember that the Fediverse’s success comes not from corporate metrics like profit margins or user acquisition, but from grassroots movements, affinity groups, and real needs. The challenge lies in creative “stitching”, in building networks that scale while maintaining the core #4opens values of openness, decentralization, and permissionlessness.

Big tech’s model is horribly efficient at addiction and control, but at the loss of community, autonomy, and creativity. We don’t need to replicate their model. Instead, we #KISS focus on the values that make the #openweb unique: cooperation, shared governance, and, most importantly, people’s agency.

Why OGB and OMN Matter, the Open Governance Body (#OGB) is built from decades of activist organizing, and like the #OMN (Open Media Network), it’s designed for the public good. Both projects are rooted in the belief that we already have working models, proven over 200 years of social activism—that can guide us in building alternative tech solutions to resist the corrosive influence of corporate power

If you’re interested in how we can compost the current tech mess, have a read about the concepts of #composting on this site and learn more about the #OGB and #OMN. We can’t keep creating the same #techshit mess, by understanding these alternative paths can we walk together, a path toward a truly #openweb that is so needed in this era of #climatechaos

How to think about governance https://lovergine.com/foss-governance-and-sustainability-in-the-third-millennium.html

The metaphor of cat herding

The metaphor of cat herding is a useful and fitting when working with decentralized, independent actors who are resistant to collective action, especially in grassroots tech and activist communities. It reflects the challenge of getting people to focus, organize, and work toward common goals without losing their autonomy or devolving into chaos.

With projects like #OMN and the broader #openweb movement, this “cat behavior” is part of the problem, people (especially in the tech and activist communities) are often independent to a fault. Many resist structure, preferring to focus on their individual projects without acknowledging the necessity for governance and collaboration. It’s not enough to be open; without some kind of balance, “open” becomes vulnerable to co-option by corporate interests with #mainstreaming or at the grassroots paralysed by fragmentation.

Let’s look at some examples of balancing the “Common Sense” #mainstreaming mess:

The term #socialweb is a perfect example of an inadequate framing. It doesn’t hold the critical, oppositional power needed to counter the problems caused by mainstream platforms and narratives. The #openweb, clarified through the #4opens, offers a path to activism that balances the inevitable co-option by corporations and the path of NGOs like the #SWF (Social Web Foundation). But this balance only works if we acknowledge the simple reality: that both grassroots actors and corporations have access to these spaces.

The invisible power of #FOSS is another key aspect here. The foundation of corporate tech stacks is built on open-source projects, yet the social and political value of this is lost on many people who don’t see beyond the technical aspects. The same applies to the #geekproblem, which ties directly into the cat-herding analogy—people in the geek world to often miss the bigger picture and the need for broader, political engagement beyond coding or individual technical projects.

Cats vs. Humans in Governance

When grassroots movements fail to build their own governance structures, external actors step in. This is where NGOs or other “grown-up humans” take over. They come in to “pet the cats”—offering bowls of food and the “safety”, and the control of care, but ultimately exerting direction over a process that needs to be native, organic and grassroots-driven. This infantilises the community, pacifying it rather than empowering it.

The problem is that the “cats” let this happen because they are incapable of building the structures necessary to avoid it. If we don’t step up with human solutions, if we don’t create governance models that fit our ideals, we’re always losing control to external forces that don’t share our values and paths.

It’s beyond urgent to move from cat behaviour to human solutions, we are in an era of #climatechaos, where incrementalism and complacency are paths we can no longer take. We can’t keep trying to herd cats who refuse to collaborate on meaningful, systemic change. Instead, we need humans who can engage with the mess we’ve made and work together to clean it up.

To make this move from cat behaviour to human solutions:

Build Native Governance: Grassroots projects need to establish their own governance from the start. This avoids outsiders stepping in and co-opting the movement. The #OGB is a solid step in this direction.
Clarify Language and Values: Words like #socialweb lack the critical edge to inspire action. Framing like #openweb and #4opens make the values explicit and point to the political and social power of the alternative we’re built.
Acknowledge Power Dynamics: Open means open for everyone, including corporations. But grassroots actors need to reclaim the open spaces they helped create rather than let these be dominated by corporate inflowing interests. Balance can only come from political awareness and active mediation.
Move Beyond Individualism: The metaphor of herding cats also speaks to the issue of #stupidindividualism. We need to get beyond this and rebuild collectives, focusing on shared governance and goals rather than isolated actions.
Challenge Corporate Co-Option: Just as #FOSS underpins corporate tech, we need to build movements that are resilient to corporate takeover. This involves structures and cultural values that resist domination and control.

It should not need to be repeated so often, the shift we need is cultural as much as it is technical. We can’t keep going down paths we know do not work and only lead us back to the current mess. We need to rethink what it means to be part of a collective and how to build governance that reflects our values, instead of relying on outside forces to define them for us #KISS

PS. I am thinking this could get messy, we need shovels #OMN

What am I doing now?

People ask, so It’s good to remind my self about this, my journey of working to compost this mess goes back a long way, as you can see from the snapshots of history I’ve written about here: https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=history. It’s a light touch on nearly 30 years of work. It all started with the Sinclair Spectrum, where I was part of a development team working on games and applications. I was also one of the first wave of users of the #WWW when it arrived at the computer centre in Oxford. For the last two decades, I’ve been at the heart of grassroots #openweb activism, working on countless projects—some flourished, many did not.

Ten years ago, I bought a lifeboat and sailed away, attempting to step back from the endless noise. But, as the world is round, I’ve come full circle and find myself back in the fray. And yes, it’s still a mess.

It’s important to keep asking questions, and one that comes up often is, “What are you doing now?” It’s easy to list the things I’ve done, but what’s happening right now? Currently, I’m in conversations with people about responsibility within the #openweb, though I’m not sure how much is really being heard. Still, it’s worth trying.

Where do you see the opportunity for these dialogues

In practical terms, all the recent projects I’ve worked on are on standby for now. The most relevant one to this #SocialWebFoundation conversation is the #OGB (Open Governance Body), which you can learn more about here: https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody. The quotes from this project remain telling, especially in light of today’s struggles: https://hamishcampbell.com/corporate-presence-in-the-fediverse/, deeply relevant as we discuss the corporate encroachments we face today.

On the personal side, I’m fitting out a bigger lifeboat. If we keep making this mess, we may all end up needing one to survive the tide of #climatechaos. As for tech, maybe I’m entering the grumpy old man stage, but I increasingly feel that the next generation should stop creating more #techshit. It’s time for shovels and composting—the messy, necessary work of turning the rot into fertile ground for something better.

On the subject: We talked about this here, What would a fediverse “governance” body look like? And then here Working and thinking on “native” #openweb aproches to governance and agen here where the conversation goes off the rails OGB Means Open Governance Body

A video on the ogb project that came out of us outreaching AP to the EU, the last time we did manage to herd the “cats” for a good outcome.

OGB video

This is a “native” path that we know will work to both empower “us” and disempower “them” it’s easy and simple and native.

The #SWF would have a voice, they simply become an affiliate stakeholder, like meany others.

I don’t have the focus to push this any more, so it will need a crew.

The conversation continues here