When founder Eugen Rochko started working on Mastodon, his focus was on creating the code and conditions for the kind of social media he envisioned. The legal setup was a means to an end, a quick fix to allow him to continue operations. From the start, he declared that Mastodon would not be for sale and would be free of the control of a single wealthy individual, and he could ensure that because he was the person in control, the only ultimate decision-maker.
This approach was efficient and expedient at first, but in time it was clear that the Mastodon structures needed to evolve as the community grew. Taking the first tentative steps almost a year ago, there are already multiple organizations involved with shepherding the Mastodon code and platform. The next 6 months will see the transformation of the Mastodon structures, shifting away from the early days’ single-person ownership and enshrining the envisioned independence in a dedicated European not-for-profit entity.
It seems that this approach to bootstrapping a not-for-profit enterprise is the most common one. You start with a BDFL, and eventually, the FL part withers away into a different structure. Are there any other common approaches that folks are familiar with? I’ve seen folks try to start from committees right at the beginning too, and that doesn’t seem to be as effective. Happy to hear counter-examples though.
I’ve been involved in the starts of several non-profits and I can’t think of a counter-example. There probably are counter-examples but maybe they’re very rare. We could ask a sociologist!
While that’s all it is on the surface, I’ve seen plenty of conversation about a CEOs influence over a product and it’s effect on the outcome. People plugged into mastodon development (it’s open source) probably have feelings about Eugen’s leadership and direction setting.
At a time when social media is at the height of scrutiny and turmoil, I thought this was a really interesting direction from the org. So the content of the post itself may not be interesting on its own, but IMO the wider implications are.
It seems that this approach to bootstrapping a not-for-profit enterprise is the most common one. You start with a BDFL, and eventually, the FL part withers away into a different structure. Are there any other common approaches that folks are familiar with? I’ve seen folks try to start from committees right at the beginning too, and that doesn’t seem to be as effective. Happy to hear counter-examples though.
I’ve been involved in the starts of several non-profits and I can’t think of a counter-example. There probably are counter-examples but maybe they’re very rare. We could ask a sociologist!
Flagged; business unit transfers are not super interesting for here, and it has tin-cup rattling at the bottom.
While that’s all it is on the surface, I’ve seen plenty of conversation about a CEOs influence over a product and it’s effect on the outcome. People plugged into mastodon development (it’s open source) probably have feelings about Eugen’s leadership and direction setting.
At a time when social media is at the height of scrutiny and turmoil, I thought this was a really interesting direction from the org. So the content of the post itself may not be interesting on its own, but IMO the wider implications are.
Agree, especially for this particular post for two reasons:
It’s attracted a good comment from @aspensmonster that’s directly relevant to many programmers, and
Mastodon’s central (for better or for worse) in defining the current generation of federation protocols.