Twitter is a neat illustration of the problem with benevolent dictatorships: they work well, but fail badly. Because they are property — not protocols — they can change hands, and overnight, you get a new, malevolent dictator who wants to retool the system for extraction, rather than collaboration.

Donations

The reason we've avoided registering "Cinnamon" as a desktop name is that it opens up issues with many upstream apps that currently OnlyShowIn=Gnome or Gnome;Unity or just Unity. The relationship Mint has with Gnome and Ubuntu isn't genial enough that we could get them to add Cinnamon to their desktop files, so we would have to distribute and maintain separate duplicate .desktop files just for Cinnamon for these upstream packages.

But all of these attempts misunderstand why the Open Source ecosystem is successful as a whole. The ecosystem of fairly standard licenses provides a level playing field that allows collaboration with low friction, and produces massive value for everyone involved – both to those that contribute and to those that don't. It is not without problems (there are many essential but unsexy projects that are struggling with funding), but introducing more friction won't improve the success of this ecosystem – it will just lead to some parts of the ecosystem to break off.

👍 Upvote issue #204 if you want to see it land faster.

Our team is building open source community tools and Svelte fits our identity as an independent labor of love with an organic community.

With some frameworks, you may find your needs at odds with the enterprise-level goals of a megacorp owner, and you may both benefit and sometimes suffer from their web-scale engineering. Svelte’s future does not depend on the continued delivery of business value to one company, and its direction is shaped in public by volunteers.

Better community building: At the moment, MDN content edits are published instantly, and then reverted if they are not suitable. This is really bad for community relations. With a PR model, we can review edits and provide feedback, actually having conversations with contributors, building relationships with them, and helping them learn.

It is open to the community to help set its direction.

In Rust, we use the "No New Rationale" rule, which says that the decision to merge (or not merge) an RFC is based only on rationale that was presented and debated in public. This avoids accidents where the community feels blindsided by a decision.

I'd like to go with an RFC-based governance model (similar to Rust, Ember or Swift) that looks something like this: new features go through a public RFC that describes the motivation for the change, a detailed implementation description, a description on how to document or teach the change (for kpm, that would roughly be focused around how it affected the usual workflows), any drawbacks or alternatives, and any open questions that should be addressed before merging. the change is discussed until all of the relevant arguments have been debated and the arguments are starting to become repetitive (they "reach a steady state") the RFC goes into "final comment period", allowing people who weren't paying close attention to every proposal to have a chance to weigh in with new arguments. assuming no new arguments are presented, the RFC is merged by consensus of the core team and the feature is implemented. All changes, regardless of their source, go through this process, giving active community members who aren't on the core team an opportunity to participate directly in the future direction of the project. (both because of proposals they submit and ones from the core team that they contribute to)

The initials fa in the class refer to Font Awesome, an open- source set of icons created by Dave Gandy,23 which further links this project to the open- source community and its ethos of collaboration. Font Awesome gives the community icons for making professional- grade web apps, rendering artifacts and objects legible in the contemporary web design ecology

This is very irresponsible of them, with respect to the number of downloads. They should finally realize this and just redirect people to LO. Continuing like this hurts the Apache Foundation credibility as well as the open source community as a whole.

The folks at Netlify created Netlify CMS to fill a gap in the static site generation pipeline. There were some great proprietary headless CMS options, but no real contenders that were open source and extensible—that could turn into a community-built ecosystem like WordPress or Drupal. For that reason, Netlify CMS is made to be community-driven, and has never been locked to the Netlify platform (despite the name).

With k6, our goal has always been to create the best load testing tool for the modern working developer and that we do this in collaboration with the k6 community. Our revenue will not come from k6 directly, but from premium value creating offers based on k6. These offers will be made available at https://loadimpact.com. Load Impact premium offers will have focus on providing further simplicity, productivity and ease to use functionality.

We believe the key to Load Impact’s long-term success as a Company is to foster an active community of users around k6 as an open source project. To achieve this long-term goal, it is vital that we do not withhold new features from k6 based on whether or not they compete with our SaaS offering.

Their hope by announcing so loudly what they have accomplished, is that others in the Android modder/hacker scene will step up and help them turn this root exploit into something useful for users by deploying features that are not currently available through the Google controlled Chromecast experience.

Companies that open source a project and then abandon it need to publicly acclaim the people taking over the project and make a clear change in ownership.

Some projects work to actively alienate corporations trying to contribute because of ideology. This is not the path that will lead us to sustainable open source software development and companies that can contribute responsibly.

The company refuses to expand the core development team with non-employees

sometimes you find a bounty like this one where a company has added a significant amount to a bug

the nature of low-bandwidth communication on the internet probably just exposes you to misunderstandings and you end up stressing out over things vs being the friends you normally would.

At Twitter, our open source program has a team of developer advocates focused on growing open source ecosystems which are important for us to ensure they thrive and evolve to our benefit.

hosting events, speaking at conferences, reaching out to contributors, writing documentation to lower the barrier of entry to new contributors

THE ART OF