Comment by evbogue

Comment by evbogue 2 days ago

Secure-Scuttlebot (the gossiped social network) died circa 2019 or 2024 depending who we ask. It died before it's time for various reasons including:

1. competing visions for how the entire system should work

2. dependence on early/experimental npm libraries

3. devs breaking existing features due to "innovation"

4. a lot of interpersonal drama because it was not just open source but also a social network

the ideas are really good, someone should make the project again and run with it

myself248 2 days ago

I tried it twice and the onboarding experience was insurmountable. Never managed to achieve a critical mass of followers or whatever they call it, so things were permanently read-only for me. I'd reply but nobody saw it.

It was a fascinating protocol underneath, but the social follow structure seemed to select strongly for folks who already had a following or something.

Reply View 0 replies

v3ss0n 2 days ago

So much drama there too, but it's designed to attract drmas

Reply View 6 replies

znpy 2 days ago

Drama has killed the technological progress in open source, if you ask me.
Having seen what goes on in the foss world and what goes on in the large faang-size corporate world, no wonder the corporate world is light-years ahead.

Reply View | 5 replies
- lifty 2 days ago
  
  It is a fundamental constraint of consensus based organizations. You need hierarchy to move faster but that has other disadvantages.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  pessimizer 2 days ago
  
  You don't need hierarchy, but you need some sort of process. "Consensus-based" just means that the loudest and most enduring shouters get their way, and when their way fails spectacularly, they leave in a huff (taking their work with them, badmouthing the project, and likely starting a fork that will pull more people out of the project and confuse potential users who just bail on trying either.)
  Those people need to be pushed out early and often. That's what voting is for. You need a supermajority to force an end to discussion, and a majority to make a decision. If you hold up the discussion too long with too slim a minority, the majority can fork your faction out of the group. If the end of debate has been forced, and you can't work with the majority, you should leave yourself.
  None of this letting the bullies get their way until everything is a disaster, then splitting up anyway stuff.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  znpy 2 days ago
  
  Nah, it is not.
  The core of the issue is that drama is a way to impose your views of the world.
  In foss software you quite literally don’t have to agree. You can fork the software and walk your own path. You can even pull changes from the original codebase, most licenses allow that.
  Consensus is only necessary if you care about imposing your views of the world onto others.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies