This is what the #OGB is aiming for

The leadership model of the #Fediverse has long mirrored the “aristocracy” of many open-source projects. At the centre stands the developer “king”, a benevolent dictator model that, while functional to a point, is fundamentally limited. Now, we see a shift towards the #NGO-style of governance, and ironically, this may be an even worse model.

Let’s be honest: the day-to-day of the Fediverse is more like elephants stampeding while people throw paper planes at each other. It’s messy, chaotic, but truthfully native to what the Fediverse is. And that’s the point.

Democracy is always messy. Bureaucracy, on the other hand, is tidy—but dead. The problem is that what people wish for—neat structures, clear hierarchies, clean governance—is often exactly what kills the real vitality of alternative spaces. When you introduce money and institutional status into a grassroots organization, power politics follow. Every time. If you want to avoid this, you need some form of lived, messy democracy, rooted in shared trust and open process.

The real question is: how do we build structures that are native to the Fediverse? Ones that reflect its radical difference rather than force it back into broken moulds? I’ve watched hundreds of projects fail over the last 20 years by doing just that—reverting to what’s familiar, what seems “common sense.” But this “common sense” is the enemy of growing grassroots movements. Especially when you’re trying to build something outside the gravitational pull of the #mainstreaming machine.

The Fediverse works because it’s radically different. That difference is fragile, and we need to protect and deepen it, not dilute it with NGO logic or replicate Silicon Valley’s pyramid schemes. What we need is trust, messiness, and actual grassroots process. This is what the #OGB is aiming for. Let’s not throw that away for a seat at the wrong table.