one of the themes of my work in the last few years, and in particular my public speaking, has been that the building of a software commons, of "open source" if you like, is the work of building community.
I have been struggling to do that work myself for a whole host of reasons, but at the same time as my personal capacity has been greatly diminished, the company within the community we've already built has been making increasingly strident demands that I cognitively self-mutilate in order to achieve some marginal, unquantified "productivity", and as much as I am trying to navigate that as best as I can… I dunno. Maybe we can't.
So many people who share my views have decided the conflict isn't worth it and have quietly stepped back, transitioned into a different career, or decided to "act their wage" as the kids say, just do their job to keep the insurance, and completely stop existing in public.
Really starting to think that maybe the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
@glyph I think in broad public-facing roles this might be true. I think enclosure of discourse with boundaries controlled by the community is the new "open". Open can't mean for everyone anymore, without including and enabling powerfully toxic influences, so the place for open-values-oriented work this decade becomes specific to communities. Driven underground, so to speak. Just 2 cents. My opinion may not be the most credible, but this is what I think I see happening.
