[aliqot]

I get tired of community uprisings and activism that fundamentally misunderstand how open source works, fork it.

If you're not the in the top producers in a DoOcracy then you neglected your right to exert influence in the direction of the project.

I've led a few larger projects and the rate at which the least of us will have the biggest opinions about who is -owed- what is flabbergasting.

DoOcracy's are great, but they often flame out with the top contributor finding one day they have a self-appointed board of directors for a passion-project that they just wanted to share with the world.

[rapnie]

It is a multi-step process. First you do the right thing and kindly ask to repair trust that has been breached. If that doesn't work, which is a likely outcome, discussion about forks are in order. "Just fork it" is easy to say, but with large projects require careful consideration. There's too many people saying "just fork it" all too casually, if you ask me.

[aliqot]

> First you do the right thing and kindly ask to repair trust that has been breached

Gitea is a self-labeled "DoOcracy". nobody owes an apology. forking is inherent to open source methodology. ideological conflicts help nobody but those who lead them. the fact is that the work is done by few, and those few have decided to exercise their rights in open source to do what is their prerogative.

[rapnie]

> the fact is that the work is done by few, and those few have decided to exercise their rights in open source to do what is their prerogative.

There's a whole bunch of contributors to this project, who've never been informed. Even maintainers were caught by surprise as only some marginal bits of info were apparently spread.

A project creating CONTRIBUTING guidelines, then Owners not honoring them? Effectively just pretending to be a community-driven project. Probably legally the ones incorporating have done nothing wrong. And culture, norms don't count in business world. But they do in free software community.

Yes, a fork may be in order. But technically this could still be mended and things be put right.

[kdumont]

What contributing guidelines were not honored?

[nybble41]

https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#...

The current holder of the domains and trademarks was elected as the custodian for a limited time (through the end of 2022). The terms of that election included an agreement to hand over custody to their eventual elected successor. But they've instead created this for-profit company and transferred it ownership of the assets.

What happens when a new custodian is elected by the community who is not affiliated with this new company? Will the company give up control of the assets as previously agreed?

[patcon]

I feel you're missing the point. This person is saying that one should communicate first. If you perceive communication exclusively as "activism" or "apology" seeking (or cancellation?), then I understand why you might not choose that path.

But others often choose open comms before heavy action, and many contributors would support that.

And yes, "forking" is subjectively a heavier action to some ppl. It's subjective, for sure. To each their own, I guess :)

Respectfully, I'm not one who would take or support your advice to act earlier (and such is my right)

[shkkmo]

Forking is inherent to open source methodology, however many open source projects depend on a community of contributors and users to maintain the project, fund it, and push it forward.

While a simple personal fork of a repository/codebase is not very aggressive, forking a community (or attempting to) is a pretty significant step that will almost always create drama and bad feelings.

Working to communicate and resolve issues before attempting a fork of the community is always a good idea since they should be avoided when possible.

While the owners of an open source project absolutely have the legal rights to do as they wish, if those owners are interested in maintaining a community around their project, it behooves them to listen to that community, especially to those who have put their own time and effort into that project and community.

[dachary]

Sometime people make mistakes, big ones. That happens and this open letter gives them the opportunity to make right by the community. A fork is a last resort option, when everything else failed. Patience and understanding is a good thing in Free Software communities. Even when facing what appears to be a malicious action.

[dboreham]

The dispute here isn't about the code. It's about the domain name and trademark.

[solarkraft]

This is the step right before forking. If diplomacy fails, then you fork. A silent fork is much less likely to gain traction. This letter raises awareness for the problem and is the reaction to it is a solid foundation for a fork.

[aliqot]

Your improvements to the code do not require 'traction'. The only thing that undoes a do-ocracy is another do-er, and that starts with a fork, like how Gitea started.

[Brian_K_White]

Way too much worship of this DoOcracy word on this story.

It's not as end-all-questions as a lot of people seem to think. It's the kind of thing people say who just find caring about anyone else's concerns about bad behavior annoying and wish for a way to shut them up and and also green light their own bad dehavior.

One problem with doocracy is it not only doesn't care who does something, it also doesn't care what the holy doer does.

DoOcracy is no valid excuse for being a dick.

"Why did you punch me in the face?"

"Shut up, it was free."

[twawaaay]

Right to the source code is a completely separate issue from rights to the project name and domain name. You can guarantee decentralised access to the source code but you can't guarantee the same for the name and domain.

[nerdponx]

The word "just" is doing a lot of work here.