@erlend
Indeed. I find it very well relates both to technical and social concepts. People standing up for each other. Where they co-create and together shape the works that advance humanity there's peer production.

Social dynamics in grassroots creative environments (at 'movement' level) depend a lot on hedonic motives driving proactive participation of autonomous agents/peers. Intrinsic motivation drives 'governance' as emergent force through P4P commons-based service & value exchange.

@erlend
I have named the overall 'formula' that incorporates such ideas "Joyful creation". Indicating a vision for seamless collaboration across the commons.

Also relating to "Joy of coding", but broadened to holistically include the entire scope of the creation process plus the full lifecycle of the created work, from first idea to dispersal of the value that was 'converged'.

@erlend
I took inspiration of Dan North's @tastapod concept of #JoyfulCoding outlined at cupid.dev

Joy of coding is a big hedonic driver that starts many FOSS hobby projects. The problem is that these grow beyond hobbies and start to crack down quickly under the unaddressed forces that begin to work on them.

So here holistic approaches become vital. Accounting for evolution, adopting a sustainability-first approach to growth, relate local scope --> ecosystem --> movement.

@erlend @tastapod

As you know I 'ditched' FOSS as useful concept unless in handwavy casual chatter, and use a redefinition that is workable for a sustainable commons:

FOSS = SOSS + hobby projects
SOSS = Sustainable open social software
SOSS = Projects addressing their FSDL
FSDL = Free software development lifecycle
SOSS = Foundation of open social stack

Friendly and open ecosystems that may flourish and thrive can stand on SOSS, not on shaky hobby projects that may crumble any moment.

exactly! This is what one of the conclusions in my thesis was about. What design principles can be made for sustainable FOSS (or rather SOSS ;D) projects to thrive? How should organizing be done?

- Small (like two people can complete it)
- Specific (has a limited and scoped function)
- Achievable (completed and no need for continuous expensive maintenance)
- Documented (other people can learn about it)
- Modular (can fit in with other projects, act as a bridge or connector)

All the above enable self-organizing, which is a resilient and adaptive formula for peer-for-peer as an ecosystem.

Edit: formatting

@erlend @tastapod

💯 💯

@erlend @tastapod

I would like to mention another imho crucial aspect. I have taken commonplace ideas of working-in-public to heart and created a variant called weaving-in-public. A very unselfish way, as you don't build a public influence sphere (influencer-style social networking):

discuss.coding.social/t/weavin…

Working in public is only a good practice. Insufficient. For healthy evolving commons we need working-in-commons, so we keep control and ownership "of the people, by the people".

Weaving in Public: Connecting people and interests

Placeholder for a possible Best Practice. This is based on how I do a lot of Advocacy activities e.g. relating to the Fediverse. Weaving in Public This practice is related to Learning in Public: The fastest way to learn.

^{Discuss Social Coding}

@erlend @tastapod

I have been in discussions with quite a few FOSS working-in-public extremists who wanted to take the concept to its maximum extent, like operating with *complete* transparency (as a core requirement for trust), and plead e.g. for "radically transparent strategies".

That's playing poker with open cards and wondering why you always lose.

It is not a basis to live up to the dreams and ambitions to one day compete with big tech and brighter futures. It's flawed thinking.

@erlend @tastapod

What @zelf indicates is that there are many different contexts to take into consideration, and the context dictates the best approach. At a very fundamental basis the social context determines the meaning of information. You can have it stored in some kind of data model. I.e. data. But information and semantics make things as nuanced as you can manage and support it. How much of that we can do with tech, who knows. The social is still mostly all manual activity.