nostr:npub1q0hyk5rfkj3a5w8aactlc9z4374m54ll8pkmfc6hhy4dt8cq5nfq7lxqc8
> do you think focusing on how governance *actually* operates in a project... can be a helpful way of working with those differences? Or is that a killjoy too?
It certainly could be. As I said here...
https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/110830595642528026
... I think there's value in making expectations explicit at the start of a new project, and when new people join.
(1/?)
nostr:npub1q0hyk5rfkj3a5w8aactlc9z4374m54ll8pkmfc6hhy4dt8cq5nfq7lxqc8
To some degree one could see a project's choice of CoC as an example of surfacing expectations. Those based on the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines could be saying they're more of a hacker project, foundation people welcome in their spare time. Whereas those adopting the Contributor Covenant and other templates might suggest a project led by foundation people and corporate employees, doing Open Source at work
(2/?)
nostr:npub1q0hyk5rfkj3a5w8aactlc9z4374m54ll8pkmfc6hhy4dt8cq5nfq7lxqc8
But even this is pretty ambiguous. Among Māori, the indigenous people of Aotearoa, there's a brilliant cultural technology called "whakawhanaungatanga". It roughly translates as "making family".
Whenever they come together in a formal setting, they spend a lot of time establishing "whakapapa". This is often translated as "genealogy", but that's only one tiny slice of it. A better translation might be "relatedness".
(3/?)
