Post #4437557
2026-07-23 17:49 UTC
@gedankenstuecke@scholar.social @codefloe@social.tchncs.de
I said that an association is a/the problem, I didn't say that democracy is. And yes, there are differences between a full democratic voting system for all decisions that are on the line and a group of people (wherever they might come from) to work together on something and moving it forward.
A company structure doesn't prevent that at all! This 0/100 thinking of association vs company structure is just wrong and partly naive. In which way does CodeFloe act non-democratic? Ask differently: CB restricts participation to paying members - is that how active democracy is supposed to look like?
CB is centralized at the top and composed out of a few members who have the keys to all servers. Their positions are not being voted on nor has anyone ever being put in place by the community through a public vote other than the bookkeeping people. The day-to-day technical decisions are made by these people and they are (at large) the founders of the association. They say what is being done and they are not voted upon by the community. The community only gets to discuss the complicated political and ethical issues of the platform/association in its ToU.
Replies (1)
-
@gedankenstuecke@scholar.social 2026-07-23 17:58
@pat_dev@social.linux.pizza @codefloe@social.tchncs.de I don't know, mate, from where I stand it looks like you don't want to play along with other people/do the work to find consensus as you want to only 'focus on the tech'. So you first made a fork of a CI tool to be BDFL of that, and then your own off-label Codeberg with you as the BDFL as well. Which fine, whatever. But then the model of running the thing becomes "trust me bro", not any more or less than GH et al are doing