Open source sounds like a crazy dream inside our capitalist world. Sylvain Corlay, the CEO of QuantStack, said that he explained the idea of open source to people and they told him that if they didn't understand that this [open source] existed they wouldn't believe such thing was possible.
I've never seen open source through these goggles because to me it was such an obvious effort on the direction we should strive for as a race. But they are of course right, open source is almost unbelievable if you take into account the "normal" world and the stuff happening around it.
I want to understand better how open source happens.
One way of doing that is to research how anarchic organizations come into place and understand anarchism better. I've read a few anarchist books throughout my life because it's the political orientation that I agree with the most but I don't feel like I've done enough. Currently I'm reading (jeez, I forgot the name):
It's also important to understand just organizational structures in a higher level, for that I know Mushtaq Khan is doing important work. But who else is relevant? I'm not sure, but definetely something I should pursue too. (God, there's so much context on this link, this is probably a good way to start.)
Another important aspect of open source is, of course, itself. I have to understand its origin more deeply. I read uncountable articles and books from the very creators of the movements we use today but I don't think I have a good enough understanding on how it came to be and where it's headed. I wonder if - they - the creators or instigators of the movement have an idea themselves of what happened and how, of what's happening right now and if they have good predictions of what will happen.
Focusing on the idea of open source studying itself, I think it's always useful to have tons of data. And as important as having data is asking the right questions. I've been avoiding to start thinking about these questions because I feel under prepared, but I think the earlier I start the more iterations I can have and the better my questions will be, so here's a try on some questions that a) I'd like to ask the fathers and mothers(do we have mothers? :/) of the movement and b) to peers that are both researchers and users. Okay:
We see a lot of coming and going in open source projects. It's hard to find mantainers that will do meaningful, useful work, that will stick around and "repay" all the work other mantainers do to onboard them. (Is this optic of exchange wrong to begin with? I see a lot of this in literature talking about open source, maybe this very capitalistic perspective on something that's not capitalistic at all is very wrong, thouhg it is true that the mantainers have finite time and it's consuming to onboard lots of people and almost never have your work rewarded). So why does this happen in your opinion?
Why isn't your reserach open? The benefits of having it peer reviewed will make it better, you'll be able to talk about in a deep level with other experts that can go through your data and code and improve it, ask challanging questions, you can share knowledge and advance faster. I understand this might not be the optimal way of dealing with some researches because of the monetary incentive that might disappear if they're open. But in what extent this is true? In what extent people are afraid of peer's feedbacks? Is this all caused by big, evil corporations that just want to make money and don't care about human development? (Am I too naive?)
I think more or less in the same category as the previous question is why isn't scientific papers aiming for open research? I suppose this is because they do make a lot of money selling access to their platforms?
Okay, I'll work on my other shit for now.