<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>start on Tiny Tech Bureau</title>
    <link>https://tinytechbureau.com/</link>
    <description>Recent content in start on Tiny Tech Bureau</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2024 10:00:00 -0700</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://tinytechbureau.com/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>A Venn diagram of Open Source governance</title>
      <link>https://tinytechbureau.com/blog/venn-diagram-of-open-source/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2024 10:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid>https://tinytechbureau.com/blog/venn-diagram-of-open-source/</guid>
      <description>Good governance of Open Source projects is really important:&#xA;Allows for direction, priority and planning (both short and long-term). Allows for opinionated design decisions. Can resolve conflicts. Enables a financial body, i.e. to uphold fixed costs or compensate developers. Oversees maintainer workloads. Can enforce a Code of Conduct But rather than having clear governance, I see most projects (including my own) default to an unfulfilled mix of maintainers, community and owners.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
