I just listened to this great podcast episode:
This discusses the issues with how strict, rule-focused, and rule-following and rule-enforcing different cultures can be. I find the framing helpful.
I strongly disagree with those who suggest that we just need to remove rules and everything will just work out. But it’s easy to see how excessive rules may be stifling, counterproductive, unjust etc. It’s all a matter of finding the right balance to deal with how people and systems actually work.
So, FLO can seem to be pushing toward relaxed, loose approach to rules. But done right, it has clear norms and rules itself. Snowdrift.coop uses the tightest and most restrictive of all the FLO licenses. The values, norms, Code of Conduct etc. are all about having strong rules that are themselves loose enough in interpretation that we can use good judgment and not treat people as simple computer programs.
Crowdmatching is itself a balance, bringing some tight rules. I once had an anarchist object to our idea of having a particular pledge model with particular rules everyone must follow. They wished for a system where every patron could make a pledge using whatever model they prefer and let the natural chaos of it all work itself out. But what we’re doing here is saying that we are proposing a specific model with tight rules. You can’t just donate any amount. You can’t just keep donating a fixed level and stop matching further. It’s a matching pledge, and you have to accept the basic rules with everyone agreeing to the same pledge. Your option is mainly to choose per-project whether you are in or out.
A totally loose attitude would suggest that you merely make it as easy as possible for people to donate and it will all work out. No matching pledge or coordination needed. I think that’s nonsense. We need some tight rules that bind us together culturally, and they must be structured to push us toward what is most ethical. They just need to be loose enough to adapt in case our initial rules aren’t quite the optimal ones (we’re not gods, we can’t get everything perfect, especially first try).
On a side note, I’ve done some work for the massive new Open Source efforts at IEEE. The significance is: the FLO status quo has some deep failures, largely based on inadequate structure, lack of planning, “tyranny of structurelessness”, lack of adherence to tighter standards, etc. IEEE is an organization that knows tight standards and strict rules. They can potentially bring to Open Source the missing strictness. Projects could come to IEEE in order to be forced to meet higher standards of ethics, security, governance etc. The FLO world desperately needs these things.