FEDER

Back to chats Igalia's Brian Kardell sits down to chat with Pia Mancini and Jory Burson about the health of the Web Ecosystem and the larger Open Source Environment.

0:00

Transcription

  • Brian Kardell: Okay, so, I'm Brian Kardell, I'm from Igalia, and we've been talking here on lots of things about the health of the web ecosystem. And this was kind of a conversation that got started with the idea that there are historically only rather simple discussions around any of this, and they usually when something bad happens. But how do we actually judge whether things are going well or not going well, and maybe there's something that we can do about it to make it better? So I can't actually think of two better people to have on to discuss this. Maybe you could introduce yourselves.
  • Pia Mancini: Sure, why not? I'm Pia Mancini, I'm the co founder and CEO of Open Collective. Open Collective is a platform that aims at enabling communities to be sustainable by receiving funding and facilitating that funding without each of them needing to have their own legal entity or bank account. So essentially, we support open source projects and other communities in their path to financial sustainability by giving them transparent financial tools and funding management tools, as well as fiscal sponsor. So, a place where they can essentially put the money. And we take care of everything else. I was born in Argentina, and currently live in Spain.
  • Brian Kardell: I think it's also interesting that like you have these sort of larger democracy ideas as well that I feel are kind of very related. Why do we look at things the way that we do, and I hope that we wind up interleaving some of that philosophy in there. My friend, Jory, if you want to introduce yourself, Jory?
  • Jory Burson: Sure. I'll introduce myself the way I introduce you sometimes. Hi, I'm Jory Burson, Jory from the internet, Brian from the internet. I work with a number of different open source and open standards organizations to improve the human and technical interoperability of the projects, most recently includes work on the OPENJS foundation for Amp and Node and jQuery and the 30 some odd projects they have. I've also recently done a lot of work on open source projects with Oasis, which are largely crypto technology projects, like Baseline and Ethereum. And then by the time this broadcast is out, I think the Open Web Docs project, which we're collaborating on with Open Collective will be live. So I've been programmed managing that as well. I get a lot of cool people and help them out, and that's what I do.
  • Brian Kardell: We're talking about this, both open source and open standards. What is open source and why is it the way that it is? I think that's interesting because standards are young actually comparatively, like the formal standards bodies, the way we look at them, we're still kind of trying to figure out how to do them in a way. And software is obviously even younger, and open source is even younger than that.
  • Jory Burson: I think this is a great philosophical question to be asking at this moment in time because it's also a question that's being re-asked on Twitter in a number of other developer circles, what is open source? There's this thread a couple days ago, actually, that Tobie Langel started, where he really kind of shared this construct, there's the class of folks who view open sources primarily being about the license. And for a long time, particularly like the 80s and early 90s, it was that. Open source was just functionally the permissiveness of the license. But over time, we've added these other components to the idea of open source, which include some indication of how the project is governed.So is that A, benevolent dictator? Is that a group of peers who are democratically making decisions about the project, that kind of thing? Is that a single company that has sort of nominally created an open source project by putting it in the open and putting a permissive license on it but not necessarily allowing, and this is kind of what some of the complaints are around elastic at the moment. It's out there, but they're not necessarily taking contributions from the community. So then you bring in not just the governance, but also sort of how well, how easy is it for people to contribute back into that project.I think all of that, and probably even more, kind of lead to a sense of how open source and open source project is, versus whether it's open source in name only or something like that. I think we're at a point where we're redefining what open source means in other terms beyond the license. And that's sort of the task of our next few years I think.
  • Pia Mancini: I find that so interesting, because, for me, when I started in the open source world, I arrived to it from a completely different approach, like a super pragmatic approach. I had nothing to do with the philosophy behind it. The first software we did for DemocracyOS that the software we created for citizen debate and voting when we had our political party in Buenos Aires. We did it open source because we were collaborating, and it just felt like it had to do with the ethos of what we were doing. But then the practicality of it was what amazed me. I remember, we were just starting to build it, in Argentina, and one of the developers in the group sent us a message saying, hey, do you recognize this. And it was our software translated to Arabic and French used in Tunisia to debate the Constitution. And for me, that was mind blowing. And this was like a month after we started building it.And so, for me, open source became kind of that way to spread ideas that were not only technology ideas, but profoundly political ideas. And that's how I got immersed in the open source world. And then obviously, digging more into that and building open source ourselves and using open source tools ourselves, and of the immediate problem of the sustainability of our community like that became very clear to me.
  • Brian Kardell: There's all kinds of reasons why people are drawn to open source at all ends of that. If you have an open source thing with good licensing, then you don't have to buy licenses and do all kinds of things. It's sort of there, it's somewhat in the comments.
  • Jory Burson: Just to that point, and we've got a great system at this point, like software foundations and standards bodies, and all of that. That whole structure has really been built to support the licensing component. But to Pia's point, it's like what systems have been built to support the ideas, that vector of ...
  • Pia Mancini: And that is changing a lot. But for many years, when we were doing this open source tech for citizen participation, it was really tough for us to get funding for that. More traditional sources of funding, at least in Latin America, but the classic is that they'll fund everything except tech in general. That changed in the last couple of years. But it's difficult, it's difficult to get the funding you need to sustain a project. And for us, it was particularly painful at points because, again, what we were doing was very political. And so, the communities in different countries that were depending on this, or that were not depending but were using heavily this software for their own voting and legislative debates at a citizen level, the responsibility we felt was pretty big. ague.And then when someone still sends me an email saying, hey, we want to use DemocracyOS in Chile or in wherever. And I know it's not maintained, so I'm like, it's tough. It's a difficult problem. But I think the funding approach has been evolving. But five, six years back, it was really tough to fund this type of open source.
  • Brian Kardell: What I like about how we're exploring many things here in Open Collective is one, it's I think a really good one, sort of asking new questions. Pia, you have a quote that I don't want to, I don't want to butcher it, but it's like 21st century citizens.
  • Pia Mancini: Yes. We're 21st century citizens trying to live under 19th century designed institutions built for an information technology of the 15th century.
  • Jory Burson: Ice cold.
  • Pia Mancini: [inaudible 00:10:49] we are. We are doing our best to kind of live under a set of political democratic power distributing institutions that were created in the 19th century for a 19th century society that had an information technology that was the printing press, and relied on that communication technology. And everything changed so dramatically. We're still trying to live under this same set of institutions. I find it mind blowing that we're still here.
  • Brian Kardell: But I think that it's actually really astute, and it's related to so many things, at least I see related to so many things that we're talking about. We have lots of things that are sort of the way they are because of their history. They were created to solve the problems that we thought we had. But the problem keeps changing and we're still learning What even is a good solution.One of the things that I wanted to ask you about was, I think in another one of your talks, you said apathy isn't a bug, it's kind of a feature. We have this idea that we have representative democracy sorts of things that we've tried, because not everybody can worry about all the things all the time. So, to some sense, part of the reason that things are the way they are is because nobody has to question them because to at least some extent, for most people, they kind of function. Am I completely misrepresenting that or?
  • Pia Mancini: Not at all. I do believe that apathy is a feature of the system and not a bug. And I think that it's being used as a bug, saying people don't want to engage because they don't care. I think that is that's not true. I think that people do care and they do engage, they just do not want to engage in the terms that the current system is proposing. And why would we, right? It's a system where you're, I mean, you can decide between preset options, an array that the system proposes, but you cannot be involved in designing those options. You are called every couple of years to say yes or nay to what happened, and then you're expected to go back to private sphere and make money.Our current political system relies on it citizenship being somewhat apathetic and just showing up when they're called to. I think that what is different from, if you are on the internet generation, is that we are used to representing ourselves all the time. Who's going to tell us that we can't go somewhere or say something or participate in a debate? The bandwidth that we have for engaging, collaborating, contributing, it's so big that we have to go back to what I call the legacy system and vote once every couple of years. It seems like such a poor input into the system. And I think that there's a lot of noise in the system because of this in general.I guess going back to what we were discussing before, for me, open source is also that way of building things on the internet as a jurisdiction, on the internet as, and I know this is contentious because the internet is not obviously what we all thought it was 15 years ago. But bear with me, the internet as this is jurisdiction where we can all come together as commons, as peers in a commons. So open source for me is, it's a pivotal part of that because we need to be able to build structures outside of the nation states, outside of the current institutions and build those bridges and infrastructure outside of it that enables us to, it's a bit like the browser. You don't want to deal with the operating system, you just want to build above.
  • Jory Burson: I'm really kind of appreciating this framing because the standardization process is what allows, eventually, after a great deal of time, too much time, allows that foundation to exist for all of the innovation on top. But to your point about inputs being kind of out of whack and apathy being not a bug, but a feature, ideally, when we talk about standardizing web and internet related technologies, it should be a fairly orderly and non-dramatic proceeding because there's been enough of the input and agreement and that kind of thing going around beforehand.So, for the most part, if you're innovating in that sort of thing, you're not necessarily surprised by anything that gets standardized. That's not really been how it's been working, and the standardization processes of many organizations aren't well equipped to gather all of the feedback and input. And that definitely creates I think a lot of problems. It slows us down in many ways and it makes it harder to create that foundation.So I think there's some balance that has to be struck between engaging everyone, and then also making sure that we've got to a point where a decision has been made, memorialized, and we can now bake that into the soil of our internet and build on top of it in a reliable way.
  • Pia Mancini: Yeah. Governance is, it's tough. Are there any kind of voting mechanisms in place or how does it work? Is it consensus?
  • Jory Burson: Maybe people don't realize that every single standards making organization has a different process, or most of them have slightly different processes, there's not one process to rule them all. And furthermore, they're not all created equal. The W3C has a mandate to create standards for the web, but they're an industry consortia, which is in the United States, something a little bit different than say an European standards making organization. They're on slightly different international standing, and all of that rolls up, obviously, into this global policy setting system that helps to regulate and make consistent how technology and markets operate across those borders.If we want to go to a society where we're not really concerned too much about those international borders, we've got to have some way of creating the agreement for how things operate across borders. And the standardization system does that. To get there, every org has to have some well-defined process. And those processes generally involve lots of rules around how decisions are taken and made, who can be part of those decisions. But it's usually like a vote or a consensus-driven process at a technical committee level that advances to the broader organization, and your working group or your technical committee at W3C or ECMA, agrees that the spec is complete and ready to advance to the next stage.And then there might be an organization wide vote where all of the members of that organization say, yes, we agree that what the committee has done is acceptable to us. Maybe we'll do a round of call for public comments or maybe we'll do a round for call for statements of use, where companies say, here's how we're using the standard. And those things might be requirements before a broader organization vote. The organization votes, they say, yes, this is now a W3C standard or this is now an Oasis standard or whatever. And then from there, they take that standard perhaps to send CELENEC or ITU or ISO, to a joint technical committee at ISO. Then it has to go through that process again, where there's a committee reviewing it, agreeing that it meets statements of use, call for public comment, yet another vote. You can hopefully see then how this can be a multi-year process.
  • Pia Mancini: Gosh.
  • Brian Kardell: To Pia's question about how does it work, is like, well, there kind of isn't an it. So when you look at standards bodies, first of all, the definition, like Jory said, of what do you mean by a standards body is kind of variable. But if you look, there's a lot of them, and they all work differently. And you might wonder, why is that? And I think really the answer is mostly because we're still trying to figure it out. Because a lot of these are created in response to what was there was not already working well. And so, we try something else.And none of them also is worth noting or frozen in time. So, they don't work the same way as when they were created because they recognize and learn as well. Sure, sure. On the whole, they, they tend to change in some ways. We have many of them that are ultimately reliant on voluntary participation. If you look at standards for the browser, for example, it's hard work, it's a lot of hard work. And currently, a lot. Very oversized amount of that work is footed by the browser vendors. And as such, practically speaking, they have a sort of critical voice in the prioritization of things and whether they get done or not.
  • Jory Burson: Let me kind of try this out just via perhaps comparison. Obviously, we all know that there's a difference between internet technologies and web technology. It's closely related but actually separate. And the internet as that soil, that commons that everybody can build on and use is still actively maintained, they're still working on internet standards and that sort of thing. The process to do that, primarily through things like IETF is funded by ISOC, and a good deal of money that is earned by ISOC through the sale and management of the DNS, the domain names.And that allows IETF to run, it allows them to do grants and sponsorship and research and study and all that kind of stuff, because I pay $10 for joryburson.com or whatever a year. And that works. Despite also having a nice community of people who care about web standards, we don't have a central funding source for these activities. So, what does drive the funding for participation is the primary business model of the web, which is ad monies earned by browser vendors and companies who are participating because they run internet or web businesses that rely on those technologies. And a lot of companies can't afford to, or don't necessarily look at participation in web standards as being so critical to their organization that they have to pay dues and vote.And frankly, in some cases, it's probably too in the weeds for them. So, the question is, is that something that they need to pay attention to or is it a feature that they can be apathetic?
  • Brian Kardell: That is sort of the question. Once we state it that way and we say this is how it is currently, there is the question of, is that a good thing or should it be that way? Why is it that way? I think it is largely that way by force of history, and that there are some good things about it, and there are some bad things about it. And one of the bad things about it is that it is, it is entirely voluntary and trickle down to a couple of really big companies ultimately. Really big companies don't last forever. They change and shift and so does their appetite and their ideas about things. It's a little bit like, maybe it would be a good thing if a company built a bridge. I don't know. If everybody could use the bridge, maybe that's good. But then who is going to maintain that bridge forever and how do we fund other bridges and public infrastructure to safety?So, one of the things that we have done very recently is this idea of, it's called open prioritization. We're taking things that normally would be implemented by a browser vendor. The trouble is, again, that's entirely opaque. We don't know when they'll implement it or if ever maybe sometimes. And just trying to involve more people in prioritizing that work and helping rethink why we do that.Sort of my analogy in my own mind is when I was a little kid, cable television was relatively new. And my grandmother thought that that was just crazy. Why would somebody pay for television, it's free, it comes over the air, right? But in the US, the television and radio and everything was, of course, not free. It was built on advertising. And introducing new models to think about that turned out to be very interesting. So we have things like Netflix and Hulu, and even PBS, and BBC, all these are different and good in their own ways. So, open polarization, we're partnering with Open Collective on that.
  • Pia Mancini: Yeah. So what I really like about open prioritization, and I think it also ties with what Jory was saying before about, how can you strike this balance between seeking all opinions and then actually kind of getting something done or moving something forward. So when I was trying, in my previous life, I was trying to get the city of Buenos Aires to do participatory budgeting, and kind of citizen voting of legislation. So instead of we voting for someone who then votes whatever they want, we get involved in the voting process at a legislative level.And so, when I was trying to sell that, the way I found of selling it or getting my point across or getting enough political will to do it, was doing first a prioritization schema. So, the idea was, we're going to, I sat down with the urban planning officers of the city. And I'm like, okay, for this neighborhood, which are the public work construction or improvements that you know you're going to do in this year, that are budgeted for this year. And then let's take those and ask folks to prioritize them. That's the first step to, because in that way, we didn't dramatically change the budget of the city urban planners. But at the same time, we started getting that flexibility, that, I don't know, gymnastics, I guess, in city engagement, in actually being responsible.When we talk about participatory democracy or when we talk about citizen engagement, I feel like a lot of the pushback comes from this notion that we the citizens, how can we decide we don't know anything, we're not experts. Everyone's going to have a say. And so, I think that is very obviously unfair and it's not a good argument. But there is a reality to it that we haven't been doing this ever. Right. And so, we also need to start building responsible citizens. We also need to start kind of going through that process of being responsible for our decisions.So I am a very fan of prioritization as that first step towards getting more engagement data. Because it's not super risky. And Brian, what you did is exactly that. All of these projects, you want to do it, you want to do them. You just wanted to see which one you should do first. And you used money as a proxy for that. And I thought it was a very clever approach.
  • Brian Kardell: I think Jory was going to respond.
  • Jory Burson: I was going to say, I think it was certainly a very impactful way to sort of, one question that we're always asking is, what can we do to help web developers at Open Web Docs and MDN? We've done a developer needs assessment for a few years. What are their pain points? What problems can we be solving for them so that they can do their jobs? And this is another way of surveying them in a sense, and not just in the, here's what hurts me, but also, here's what I would pay someone to fix for me. And that's such good information. You just really can't beat that kind of feedback.
  • Brian Kardell: I think one of the things that is interesting about how we tried to construct that is that, it does cost money to do those things. And currently, somebody else pays for that through voluntary participation. So we're not accustomed to paying for it directly. But of course, just like the TV, you're paying for it currently, you just don't realize it. Putting things out there in that way sort of helps, I hope, start the conversation about how these work. And I think that it helps combat the thing that you mentioned, Pia, which is like, but you don't even have enough information to really weigh in on this.So if you ask developers what they want, it's a little bit like asking like, well, unbound what mode of transportation would you most desire. And a whole bunch of people would pick a Lotus or a Porsche or some-
  • Pia Mancini: Flying cars.
  • Brian Kardell: Some flying car, because the problem has no bounds. A lot of us choose to not even own a car, or if we do own a car, it's considerably more practical than that. If you pose to us actually a problem with bounds that are realistic, we can make a choice. I think that's part of the idea here is, if we pose the question in a way is connected with reality here somehow, that that input can be used, I think it's valuable. And it's valuable to help people see what that takes and what it costs and everything too.So Jory, you mentioned OWD. We should talk about that because I think that is also super connected. Part of the commons of the web is good documentation. And for some reason, this is not built into the standards process, it could have been. In fact, we tried a couple of times to do that. But it turned out that the de facto thing that worked was other things.
  • Jory Burson: I think it's interesting because we talked about the evolution of open source and standards a little bit. And I think one of the things that's changed in the past few years is sort of what web developers expect from a web standard. Before, it was like, oh, well, here's a spec document, and read the spec and sort of figure it out. And then maybe go read the documentation provided by each of the separate browser engines and just best of luck.We've gone from that as a reality to, we've got some rules now in many of the working groups where you need not just the specification, but you also need corresponding tests in the requisite test suite. You also need a couple of different implementations. I think a sort of fourth component is documentation. And MDN has become over time that de facto space for excellent and highly available web platform documentation. And you mentioned web platform docs project, which was one attempt at creating that. But MDN really was where everybody went, is still where everybody goes for that information. And Open Web Docs as a project came about because we wanted to ensure that, a, the availability of web platform documentation is always prioritized. Despite the changes that may occur and corporate strategies have different browser companies, that there would always be tech writers and developers, and a means to contribute to web documentation so that we can all continue to benefit and learn about standardized web tech.And so, that's sort of the central guiding principle I think. And we're doing that now in large part in cooperation with and in support of MDN. And as folks probably know, that's a Mozilla resource, which is largely an open source project at this point. They've recently transitioned from older infrastructure to Git and GitHub, and we're going to be doing a great deal to support expansion of community involvement on MDN, and to support the participation and review and editorial needs of MDN, so that, again, the web platform is always, and browser compatibility data and everything else that goes along with that, so that people can reliably count on that material. And all of the people and companies that make use of it, because we're all, this is maybe one of the problems of open source, there's always a lot more users, people who need to consume that material, than there are necessarily people who are willing to or able to contribute back to it in some way.And in the case of documentation, we're approaching this from a standpoint of, yes, you can give back, and here's how. And we're excited to be doing that with Open Collective, and with a number of partner organizations like Coil and Google and Microsoft and Mozilla and Igalia and others. So it's also an experiment. It's to my knowledge, one of the only or maybe the first, I'm not sure, Pia, you can correct me, collectives that is actually legally employing people full time to work on open source.
  • Pia Mancini: Yes. For Open Collective, yes, it's a first. We couldn't be more excited about this. We are fans of this community. So yeah, we have currently two technical writers that are on board already. It's definitely a first. It is an experiment from Open Collective and the Open Source Collective that is the nonprofit that is giving Open Web Docs financial, fiscal Sponsorship, sorry. It's a project that we want to support, we want to see grow. So yeah, we're very excited and super grateful that we were able to make this happen, which wasn't a given, that's for sure.
  • Jory Burson: You and me both.
  • Brian Kardell: I think it's a super exciting first, and it's very much in the vein of this thing that we keep talking about is like we're trying to think about how things work and why they work that way and how we do better. And this is again about prioritization. We've tried some other things, and we look at reality, and the reality is that these things have become really important. But they're currently managed a certain way and we need to ensure that has a way that we can prioritize specifically that thing. And do it together. This is an important aspect of this is the ability for us to pull money both as individuals and companies toward a cause I guess. This thing we believe should receive priority like to this effect.
  • Pia Mancini: Yeah. I agree. And Brian, that's a very good point because the kind of commercial or for profit kind of space has a very clear way of signaling. You have investors who want to put money in your project. So it's a way of saying, this is something we want to see in the world and we're investing in it, and we have equity and ownership. If you want the commons, sorry, the community space, it doesn't have such a mechanism, how do we pull money from different sources and make ideas happen, make things come to life. We don't want to be owners of but we want to see in the world.And so, that's kind of how I see Open Collective as well. This place where we can kind of signal to the world that this is something that we want to see and we're willing to put money to make that happen and to see that happen. And also invite others since it's not a zero sum game and there is no [inaudible 00:41:10], we can invite as many people as we want to kind of join this effort, it is happening in the world.
  • Jory Burson: Yeah. One thing that's genuinely true about open source people like to say but isn't necessarily true about other spaces, which is like the the rising tide lifts all boats sort of philosophy. That's very obvious when you look at things like better web platform documentation and better developer tooling. And we might decide as a community to compete on more effective or efficient or ergonomic linting tools or something like that. But that's fine. That's healthy and we can kind of evaluate how successful or interesting one is over the other using Open Collective funding and other things as feedback into the system.
  • Pia Mancini: What we tried to do in Open Collective is to somehow unlock a new economy, where the community has economic power. And so, if projects are willing to say, we'll give someone who's willing to go and knock on all of these company's doors to get these investments. And they say, we'll give you a cut from what you can raise, or we'll pay your salary for doing this, then the tool is there, and we would love to see that happen, absolutely.
  • Brian Kardell: What's really interesting about this to me is, the more we look at it and the more we think about it and the more we experiment with it, it's clear that there's sort of like, not a single the problem, but several the problems for us to think about and explore how to solve. One is something like Open Web Docs where we can say, what we need is to pool our money toward this specific cause because we have identified this one cause that we should support. But then there's all this other stuff underneath, which is sort of buried. It's like the wires and the, all this other stuff that everything depends on, that we also would like to support, but it seems like we need sort of more coarse grained proxies for that somehow, where it would be great if we could, I don't know, I mean, I don't really have an idea.But there are other things that people are trying like Coil with web monetization, or Brave also does some things where you can put $5 a month into some bucket, and then we can distribute it somehow. It's not very much to any one of them, but if everybody puts in $5 a month, it starts to be a lot. And everybody gets some amount of the support, which is interesting, because if you think about the way that literally everything is funded in terms of the web today, not the larger web, but in terms of web browsers, ultimately, it is advertising in default search that is like the lion's share of where the money comes from. And if you think about that, they make pennies for the most part at a time. There's really a lot of them.
  • Jory Burson: I think, back your stack, Tidelift, and then to a certain degree, what GitHub is doing with GitHub sponsors kind of are in, in a similar space, where they're tackling the problem of funding these very important tools, from the standpoint of, hey, company that is using these tools and may be consuming them without real insight that you are, that's definitely a thing that happens. People are not necessarily fully aware of all the things that they're relying on. Let's surface this information to you and then now that you can see that your applications, your business relies on these free resources that you didn't pay for, why don't you kick some dollars that way so that you can support them. And hopefully, make sure they stay maintained for you for years and years to come. That's solving the problem for one customer, so to speak, the corporate customer who builds applications or services and wants to be a mindful consumer of open source, and is going to do it that way.But I think for a lot of companies, they look at that and they say, oh, okay, well, sure, that seems reasonable. What else can I get out of this money? I've always gotten something for free here and now you're asking me to pay for it. Is there something you can. They want to buy something with that, instead of just seeing it as a donation or compensation for services they've been receiving for years. Can I get support for these tools? Can I get access to developer, the maintainer for some period of time.That concerns me because although I think the way Tidelift is working that into their business model is not too problematic. But I think it's concerning in some other places because I don't want to see open source developers get, and maintainers get turned into gig economy workers who we know now are very easily, that's a system that very easily exploits people. I think one thing that's been interesting as we do these experiments and learn more about how to sustainably fund open source is getting more information and saying, okay, this is beginning to look like a system that we know to be problematic. How do we avoid that?As I said, I think that those are solutions that address the selling to a specific customer. And then you have more democratic and open ways of sponsoring open source financially through Open Collective and Gitcoin, for example. And that can be very meaningful. It depends on the generosity of the broader community of open source. It's all very complicated.
  • Pia Mancini: Yeah, totally. Duane O'Brien at Indeed, and formerly, everywhere, he's been thinking a lot about this kind of, from the standpoint of, so what he's thinking about is, what are the standards that we're going to hold corporate actors to. What defines a good corporate citizen of the open source ecosystem? I honestly refuse to cut all of this slack to companies saying, they have something for free, and so, they're going to want more. I think that if we believe that, they're going to believe that, and they're going to act accordingly.And so, I think that a really good step towards improving this relationship between, this power relationship because that's what it is, it can be a very unhealthy power relationship. And so, I think as with every power relationship that is asymmetric, we need to be able as a community to come up with standards and a set of expectations for what a company should and shouldn't do, and what it's okay for a company to do or not do in the open source space.And if you look outside of the open source world, there has been examples where this happened. We do not tolerate anymore a company that pollutes. We've decided, as a society, that that is not okay. And so, I think that for the open source space, we still need to grow a little bit and mature towards that. And Duane is trying to come up with ideas and solutions and standards in this particular space, that I agree. I think it can be very problematic. And so, we just cannot accept that companies are going to behave like that.
  • Jory Burson: I think it's a good point. If we sort of expect that they are, then we sort of, I don't know, that's a solid point, Pia.
  • Brian Kardell: I just wanted to thank both of you for coming on and chatting with me. I actually wish that we could spend even more time chatting about a lot of this stuff. It's so full of interesting challenges and possibilities. I really look forward to continuing to work with both of you on these challenges. Thanks for coming.
  • Jory Burson: Thank you so much for having me on Brian. And Pia, as always, it's very wonderful to chat with you and talk to you on the internet.
  • Pia Mancini: From the internet on the internet. Thank you. Yeah, it's exciting. I'm very excited that Open Collective is collaborating with both of you in these exciting experiments. And I'm very grateful for your trust to do this. So yeah. Thank you.