Puzzled . . @mako makes a clear pitch on "Free software production needs free tools" youtube.com/watch?v=U_nK6nP_RC
And is very clear on and (though says most code comes from solo not collaboration!). Yet not a hint of coop ownership of to keep tools honest & open (GitHub!). Surely tools today become platforms? And platforms require collaboration even if code doesn't? So why doesn't follow automatically, as we talk tools? How does libre not equal coop in FLOSS world?

@mike_hales @mako Most coop people don't understand software, let alone Free Software. Most Free Software people don't understand coops. The intersection of these two groups is tiny, but hopefully growing.

What I would like to see would be more people interested in learning, and less people trying to impose their very particualr views on the other camp.

The implied assumption that Free Software projects can't possibly stay honest is indicative that a lot more work is needed.

@mako @mike_hales Free Software was built to free people from their shackles. Free Software was almost exclusively built by Free Software people. It would be a good thing if people arrived into the world of Free Software with humble aspirations to learn how the Free Software collaborative mode of production came into being in its 30+ years of existence, and undeniable success.

@mike_hales @mako

Free Software needs many things, such as a focus on diversity, a more deliberate way to fund itself without depending on corporatism, and increased interest in other human factors like accessibility.

I believe that coops can be helpful to deliver improvements on those fronts.

@h @mako @mike_hales The Digital Life Collective diglife.com - which a cooperative, is going down this path. I encourage people here to join.

@Graham_Mitchell Digitlal Life Collective IMHO seems a bit smothering and over-engineered with its standards and recipes. But there are many consumerist folks who like to buy a package rather than blaze a trail so maybe this platform has a contribution to make?

I found it opaque on first contact, too many tools and statements nested one or more levels down under a sleek UI surface, too many core processes undescribed. Hopefully, life will triumph and the lunatics will take over the asylum.

@mike_hales I'd love to understand more about your take on it, as a few of us are working to change the outward-facing presentation quite dramatically, and your insights would be invaluable to help guide that.

@Graham_Mitchell Too full of stuff to dive down into the DLC site, and methodology 😞 Glad to hear the presentation may be changing. Can imagine that what you say about broad umbrella & common values is true.

IMHO the project does present as a kind of 'radicalism lite' or community development by numbers. But for all that, it could be a route for folks to get deeper involved, think more and network. Takes all sorts! If disparate projects are underneath, front end is amazingly coherent!

Follow

@mike_hales Many thanks, valuable feedback, which I'm sharing with others in the collective (anonymised) as we review and redesign. Greatly appreciated.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
social.coop

social.coop is a cooperatively-run corner of the Fediverse. The instance is democratically governed by its members, who generally share an interest in the co-op model, but topics of discussion range widely.

If you are interested in joining our community, please review our Bylaws and Code of Conduct. If you agree with them, you may apply for membership on our instance via this link

Our instance is supported by sliding scale contributions of $1-10/mo made via Open Collective. You must have an active Open Collective account to apply for membership; you may set one up here