Gregory's ServerHello everyone, if you're reading about the #gitea changes. It could benefit to understand the full picture, I've written a summary of what happened today and as well what @dachary, @humanetech and I found out today.
|
13 comments
@loke @Gusted @dachary @humanetech yeah, this looks worse than before: kdumont: I think specifically more information for what “DAO” might include is needed (because it is being confused with crypto) and broader communication that license will remain MIT. lunny: The emphasis is we want to share the benefits with contributors, DAO is an option tool we found, it’s not a needed if there is better way @loke @Gusted @dachary @humanetech that doesn't look like he's saying that whatever they meant by 'DAO' isn't crypto, but just that they're open to alternatives as well  @Gusted @dachary @humanetech (Disclaimer: I am Red Hat's EMEA Evangelist since many years) Well, this is what happens when you talk with VC. They want exclusivity on trademarks, intellectual property etc. And no, they typically don't want this to happen in the open. Secrecy is always a requirement for them. But now that it all is in the spotlight, the community can ask fro more clarification and garantuees. In a respectful way. Not by flamewars everywhere ;)  @Gusted @dachary @humanetech “I’m looking for VC money, a few millions” – this, combined with the announcement yesterday, actually has me more worried. It shows that either Lunny doesn’t understand what VC is or that there’s a desire to make a lot of money with Gitea in a way that isn’t compatible with being a community project. “Enterprise version” plans are not great either. Just look at GitLab. CodeBerg might want to consider sustaining their own fork while the codebase is still simple.   @aral @Gusted @dachary @humanetech I think a fork is a last resort. But of course that's a possibility.  @aral @Gusted @dachary @humanetech Yes, it's very disturbing if they are accurately quoted. VC money never seems to go well for community projects 😢 Either a project is openly all about money, in which case it shouldn't be taking unpaid contributions because that's exploitation. Or a project *is* about volunteering and community spirit, in which case it shouldn't be taking VC money because that will destroy the community.  @feditips @aral @Gusted @dachary @humanetech @jwildeboer Effects of VC money on one project I worked on: @aral @Gusted @dachary @humanetech @jwildeboer p.s. Just to be clear, I'm not objecting to projects having grants or sponsors or donations! The FOSS world definitely needs more of these. But VCs aren't donations, they're owners who demand profits even if it fundamentally changes the nature of the thing they own. The motivations and the strings attached to VC deals are the problem.  |
@Gusted @dachary @humanetech well that did not put me at ease at all. Either the guy is disingenuous or he's misled, none of which are comforting. The A in DAO requires some mechanism to keep the system going and that mechanism is cryptocurrency. There is no other way to programmatically manage the incentives. That's something I certainly don't want any part of.
And I started moving away from Github because I'm very much against what they are doing. I went to Codeberg, so we'll see what they end up doing.
@Gusted @dachary @humanetech well that did not put me at ease at all. Either the guy is disingenuous or he's misled, none of which are comforting. The A in DAO requires some mechanism to keep the system going and that mechanism is cryptocurrency. There is no other way to programmatically manage the incentives. That's something I certainly don't want any part of.