Fri, February 24, 2023, Lioh Möller
We’ve all probably heard it before:
From an operational perspective, it makes sense to only…
This is usually followed by something like: to use Windows, to make calls via Teams or similar. Basically, in most cases, this is a way of maintaining patriarchal structures and enforcing the will of individuals without involving all those involved. Unfortunately, this assumption rarely corresponds to reality, because our world is diverse and the needs are different.
Free software, on the other hand, is usually developed by consensus. This means that all needs are first collected and then a democratic decision is made together, in which each participant has an equal right to vote. At least in an ideal world. In fact, in many projects there is one Meritocracy, where people who perform better get a higher vote. Here, too, there is a danger that minorities will be ignored and a so-called oligarchy will form.
Examples from the recent past would be Canonical’s decision to adopt the as Flavors designated derivatives of the distribution, delivered by default without Flatpak. The process that led to this is not transparent and the decision was made behind closed doors without involving the community. An approach that Canonical itself has repeatedly criticized and which, for example, has led Mark Shuttleworth to use a Open Source Tea Party to speak. (A slip he later regretted sorry hat)
The decision to no longer deliver Flatpak by default inevitably leads to those affected developing solutions themselves. In this specific example, a user would install Flatpak manually via the package manager if required and activate the Flathub repository independently. Now you can say that this is not a problem. However, a more sustainable approach would be to install Flatpak by default, preconfigure the Flathub repository but disable it. Users would then be able to activate the repository if required (opt-in) using a simple switch in the software administration. Technically, this would already be possible today with the current GNOME software management.
In contrast, projects such as Debian GNU/Linux solve such decision-making processes in an exemplary manner. If a consensus cannot be found easily, there is the possibility of an as General Resolution to start the designated process. The community can initially make various suggestions for a solution, which can then be voted on. This became clear, for example, with the question of whether non-free firmware to be shipped with the distribution.
Arguments that this approach cannot be adapted to the business environment are ultimately excuses and lead to a few, mostly older, white men making decisions that are supposed to be valid for a diverse clientele or workforce. Claims that democratic processes would prevent innovation also quickly turn into the opposite on closer inspection. An example of positive community involvement in the business environment would be Nextcloud, software that is as diverse as its users.
Image source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/foobarbaz/141522112/ – Mark Shuttleworth am Linuxtag 2006 in Wiesbaden.