Work in progress and references

Radical Care References

Pads in progress resume here:

This is a limitation by the nature of organisation around a single
platform and is derived from how a lot of tools are built to
accomodate capitalist ventures where centralisation is a desired
effect.

Is it though? Sure it’s one reason, but I think it’s more because
buiding authority/trust is hard on one hand (which repo should I use
if there are multiple?), and creating a focal point on the other
Focal point (game theory) - Wikipedia (where do I
send my drive-by patch? Kernel is especially terrible at this, with
subsystems).

For the kernel/development section, I think a cool example is that
there are multiple branches people can jump into: Linus’ branch,
mainline branch, staging branch, linux-next (I think?). I don’t
exactly know how they exchange patches, and which I should be
contributing to (focal point missing :frowning: )

most people do not run the mainline kernel

I think there’s a slight mixup in using “mainline” as the community,
and “mainline” as a blessed branch of the source code. Linux is a bit
special here, because, like above, they usually have multiple very
public branches.

Centralised software communities tend to recreate colonialist
power-structures through the distribution of developers and choice
of target audience

Strong statement, needs strong support. Actually the whole paragraph
needs to be more handholdy.

One of the opportunities of creating syndicates around the creation
and maintenance of software projects is breaking this relationship.

Hard to parse, not sure if I understand correctly.


If the mainline syndicate around a project is considered hostile to
work with outside of a certain peer group, other syndicates will
allow alternative communities to spring up.

I don’t think this is explained enough. The contrast to a fork is that
a syndicate is more collaborative (between groups?), but it’s still
very unspecified, and I can’t imagine what such a wrestling of control
looks like.


Overall, I think the links between sections need to be much stronger,
I got kinda confused with the chain of ideas ending with
identification: “how did we get there?”.

Related: “To understand how this works we also need to discuss the
concept of social proximity.” → seems like the concept would be
explained in a descriptive way, but after “Proximity and community are
about belonging and identification.” there are some prescriptive parts
before the reader knows what the concept is about in general, and why
it’s important here.

Thanks @spacekookie for sharing this feedback

I agree with most of what that person said, I do have a few remarks:

This can actually be a good occasion to make cross references throughout our both texts as I develop more this aspect in the text I wrote, so maybe ou could reference it.

Maybe the paragraph I am writing about the different relations to locality can help draw the beginning of a modality. Also the supporting resistances text from @how can be used here: Pænser Ensemble / Daring Together - #3 by how