# content
@contrarian@mstdn.plus @libreoffice@fosstodon.org @tdforg@fosstodon.org

I’m for digital commons. Meaning that I believe in shared governance. By design, a company has to make money, and its governance is driven by this goal.

We already saw a lot of companies, which were exactly what you describe ("developers set up so they could earn a living while they worked on the free software"), taking a project lead and becoming basically project owner. From that, it’s easy to become Oracle/Apache/RedHat and mute community voice.

It’s easy to spit on "foundation administration", but a common healthy governance needs a structure. Maybe the current one is not the best, but we should work on allowing users to have an impact on the project, and I think it’s on the right track.

Meritocracy is shit. People allowed to decide software milestone/direction should also be people that don’t contribute at all to it.

# source.content
[@contrarian@mstdn.plus](https://mstdn.plus/users/contrarian) [@libreoffice@fosstodon.org](https://fosstodon.org/users/libreoffice) [@tdforg@fosstodon.org](https://fosstodon.org/users/tdforg)

I’m for digital commons. Meaning that I believe in shared governance. By design, a company has to make money, and its governance is driven by this goal.

We already saw a lot of companies, which were exactly what you describe ("developers set up so they could earn a living while they worked on the free software"), taking a project lead and becoming basically project owner. From that, it’s easy to become Oracle/Apache/RedHat and mute community voice.

It’s easy to spit on "foundation administration", but a common healthy governance needs a structure. Maybe the current one is not the best, but we should work on allowing users to have an impact on the project, and I think it’s on the right track.

Meritocracy is shit. People allowed to decide software milestone/direction should also be people that don’t contribute at all to it.