• A404@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    10 days ago

    A common misconception is that we need hierarchy to handle complexity. The best way to handle complexity is by increasing the amount of decision makers. Just look at how the open source community can compete with professional software companies despite not having any hierarchy,

    • Sneezycat@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 days ago

      The hierarchy is not set in stone, but I wouldn’t say there isn’t one. Otherwise, anyone could merge anything into any repo. And yes, not one repo needs to be “the official” one, but they de facto are, until some people decide to split out for some reason.

      So I don’t see it as a lack of a hierarchy, more as a consensual hierarchy similar in some ways to a democracy. But hey I may be completely off!

      • ChilledPeppers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 days ago

        A opt in hierarchy can be accepted in anarchism, because you are not coerced by it. If there is a project and you want to add your feature, but they dont allow it, you can just soft fork and maintain your feature separately from the main project.

    • Cypher@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      The best way to handle complexity is by increasing the amount of decision makers

      Spoken like someone who has never witnessed the horrors of design by committee

    • Auli@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      That is not true big successful Open source products have a decision maker. Linus for the kernel as an example…