[__MatrixMan__]

This is a good idea, a great idea even, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to position it as "resistance".

Your job, likely, is to achieve some goal. You're the specialist who gets to decide how to achieve that goal. If open source software is part of that decision, then maintaining it is should also part of that decision. It's not radical, it's just doing your job by protecting the future stability and maintainability of things you rely on for that job.

[blurbleblurble]

It's also just good business sense. Companies that promote collaboration via open source are promoting the ecosystem that feeds their business.

[redwood]

Agree. The characterization makes it seem like somebody's trying that extra attention on social media. It's sad that we're at the point where everything has to be hyperbolic

[aleqs]

While I agree with everything you say, the reality of most tech companies these days (based on my experience), is that they will not even invest time into maintaining their own infrastructure and libraries unless forced to do so - much less OSS. Building useless features for gaming metrics, enshitification, dark patterns, borderline malware/hype integration - all would be prioritized over foundational infra/library investments.

[__MatrixMan__]

I've seen plenty of the evils you're talking about, managers tend to make terrible engineering decisions and then instruct their engineers to go forth and make it so. I guess what I'm saying is that, as an engineer, your value proposition is that you can shield your manager from getting mired in such details by not asking for their unqualified opinion in the first place.

Just give estimates which include time for not doing things the dumb way, and then don't do things the dumb way. When it comes time to talk about performance reviews, call it "taking ownership."

[aleqs]

Ah yes, agreed!