Gregory's Server|
10 comments
 @hrefna @aburka I plan to use the nivenly discourse to send a fairly strongly worded short post with my thoughts about haidra, and why I think the only step I could personally accept from nivenly is to remove haidra from the list of supported projects, and first focus on a proper process for members to give input and approve/veto projects, since I indeed think my membership is directly tied to the supported projects. @hrefna @aburka However I neither have the knowledge nor the experience to write up a more productive post about that ""proper process for members" part. I do have very strong feels for both opensource AI projects being a necessity, and these from the ground up, with their main mission, being to counteract the ethical issues of company-backed projects. And as hrefna wrote up quite eloquently, this is neither that, nor is there a serious attempt to engage at all. My conclusions here are basically: 1. What nivenly has as a stated goal is a member-driven co-op where individuals can and do drive change. In that model, it isn't what "nivenly does" it is what "we do," together. I'm of the view that this is admirable 2. HOWEVER they don't seem to know what they are doing in order to enable that and are hitting a lot of what I'd call "unforced errors" along the way 3. Some of those unforced errors are things I'd view as existential threats 4. The problem I am seeing is if there is sufficient dissonance between an individual's ability to drive change and the rhetoric, it is going to be a Problem™ and one I have very little patience for, and fixing that is more work than I am signing up for right now (it requires access to a member list and a lot of time). So it comes out to the same basic conclusion—this is a litmus test—but I think I've gotten there via a different route. |
@mnl @hrefna Oof!
Not arguing w/ the principle but writing those abstract sections is so demanding/draining for me that it makes it impractical in my case 😅