[HN Gopher] The Cathedral, the Megachurch, and the Bazaar
___________________________________________________________________
The Cathedral, the Megachurch, and the Bazaar
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 105 points
Date : 2026-01-13 21:26 UTC (5 days ago)
(HTM) web link (opensourcesecurity.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (opensourcesecurity.io)
| mkoubaa wrote:
| There's a other group besides these: the secret society, who
| infiltrate the cathedrals, the megachurches and the bazaar. They
| are quite cultish, but thankfully the "Data Primacy Lodge" is
| gaining more initiates than the old guard "Order of Objects"
| sowbug wrote:
| I stalled on _Which is an acronym for "Gnu's not Linux"_ and can
| 't recover from the spin.
| tormeh wrote:
| It's excellent. I grinned ear to ear.
| k3nsa1 wrote:
| It's actually "Gnu's Not Unix", the original article got it
| wrong too
| karel-3d wrote:
| It's a joke. I think.
| nextaccountic wrote:
| It's just harmless trolling
| z3512 wrote:
| Given the tone of the article I'm sure it was tongue-in-cheek
| humor and not an error.
| jbggs wrote:
| the article also says the creator of Linux is LTT
|
| It's a joke
| faxmeyourcode wrote:
| > The TL;DR was that old open source was the cathedral of
| exclusive developers and groups. Then the Bazaar showed up
| (which was the Linux Kernel for example) and that freed us from
| the shackles of the cathedral.
|
| I didn't make it past the tldr lol is this some kind of
| poisoned data for GPT 6?
| pipo234 wrote:
| Not sure if GPT played a role, but for one the editor did a
| poor job. Very sloppy writing indeed
| zahlman wrote:
| > Big companies will often tithe to these megachurches. Some
| churches are bigger than others. The Linux Foundation makes
| hundreds of millions of dollars. Smaller foundations like the
| Python Software Foundation have to make do with only a few
| million.
|
| This hides essential detail that would seem to very much weaken
| the argument. You have the Linux Foundation and the Mozilla
| Foundation that "make hundreds of millions of dollars", and then
| everyone else is orders of magnitude smaller. Python might be in
| third place, for all I know (or maybe it's Apache).
|
| > It shows how most open source projects aren't some giant
| megachurch like group. These projects are one person.
|
| > It's easy to assume everyone else is also a megachurch member,
| even if they are not. The church members are pretty noisy and get
| a lot of attention.
|
| I suspect most of those random bazaar vendors would _like to_
| have a respectable church-sized building. Or at least a proper
| stall.
|
| > If you look at modern day open source, it sometimes feels like
| the megachurch open source is better because they have a nice
| parking lot, give out donation receipts, and it doesn't smell
| like kabobs.
|
| Well, no; it has more to do with the sense that outsiders are
| taking the bazaar seriously.
| rectang wrote:
| The ASF, chartered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity which
| serves the public good, has a budget a fraction the size of
| those of orgs chartered as 501(c)(6) nonprofits which serve the
| common business interests of members.
| zahlman wrote:
| The PSF is also 501(c)(3)
| (https://www.python.org/psf/mission/).
|
| A quick check implies Apache is on the order of half the
| size, though. When I wrote the other comment it was just the
| only other name that came to mind.
| einpoklum wrote:
| > those random bazaar vendors would like to have a respectable
| church-sized building.
|
| I believe the analogy breaks down here some. That is, actual
| bazaar vendors may want this (I suppose), but FOSS maintainers
| may or may not want an organization to form around them. They
| may be content with the way things are; or they may just want a
| co-maintainer.
| xg15 wrote:
| If we're working with those metaphors, I think it's useful to
| read up on how actual, real-life bazaars are operating.
|
| In particular:
|
| > _A bazaar or souk is a marketplace consisting of multiple small
| stalls or shops [...] They are traditionally located in vaulted
| or covered streets that have doors on each end and served as a
| city 's central marketplace._
|
| > _Merchants specialized in each trade were also organized into
| guilds, which provided support to merchants but also to clients.
| The exact details of the organizations varied from region to
| region. Each guild had rules that members were expected to
| follow, but they were loose enough to allow for competition.
| Guilds also fulfilled some functions similar to trade unions and
| were able to negotiate with the government on behalf of merchants
| or represent their interests when needed._
|
| > _Historically, in Islamic cities, the muhtasib was the official
| in charge of regulating and policing the bazaar and other aspects
| of urban life. They monitored things such as weights and
| measures, pricing, cleanliness, noise, and traffic circulation,
| as well as being responsible for other issues of public morality.
| They also investigated complaints about cheating or the quality
| of goods._
|
| ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazaar )
|
| So not quite the anarchocapitalist, self-organizing utopia that
| tech people seem to imagine there - in fact, they have a lot of
| organization, both between merchants as well as on the bazaar as
| a whole.
|
| Seems to me, this model is more similar to the "privately-owned
| marketplaces" we see increasingly in the digital world: App
| stores, merchant sites like Amazon, etc.
|
| In that sense, "most of open-source" being on Github which is now
| owned by Microsoft is ironically more similar to a real bazaar.
|
| With one difference: At least the administrators of real bazaars
| were _public_ officials with a mandate to keep the market fair -
| and there was organization among the vendors in form of guilds.
| With digital marketplaces, the markets themselves are private
| assets and the administrators are blatantly self-interested. And
| there doesn 't seem to be any kind if higher-order organization
| _across_ different open source projects, everyone is fighting on
| their own.
|
| So maybe it would do the open source community good to become
| more like an actual bazaar.
| rzerowan wrote:
| >Seems to me, this model is more similar to the "privately-
| owned marketplaces" we see increasingly in the digital world:
| App stores, merchant sites like Amazon, etc.
|
| >In that sense, "most of open-source" being on Github which is
| now owned by Microsoft is ironically more similar to a real
| bazaar.
|
| Id put it that this is incorrect insofar - as the bazaar was/is
| a public commons with a dual regulatory environment city(state)
| and the guilds , which would enforce/regulate as needed.
|
| The digital marketplaces we have would be more anologous to
| feudal plantations ,where each coder(sharecropper) survives at
| the whim of their particluar feudal lord , who have total
| control within that space and the state via lobbying mostly
| keeps off.Theer are no guild equivalent so when
| Playstore/Github makes a ruling like the recent hike of dev
| fees or ci runner. Theres no state or user leverage that can
| force a reversal other than complaints.
|
| Paradoxically id say they are more megachurch than bazaars.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Guilds are now scorned as communism
| rzerowan wrote:
| Yep and its insane when most devs are actively hostile to
| unins etc from too much libertarian koolaid when they can
| see the active backing things like teacher/nurse/police
| unions provide. They may have some bad ideas , butthe
| structure and backing kinda gets glossed over.
| jhatemyjob wrote:
| Kind of offtopic but fun fact I didn't know until recently, the
| Moldbug definition of Cathedral is based (lol) on the Eric
| Raymond definition
| ThrowawayB7 wrote:
| > " _...Microsoft. Who we haven't mentioned in this story, but
| they hated Linux more than a toddler hates naps._ "
|
| A lot of FOSS people think this but it's not really true. It was
| a thorn in the side of MS executives as a competitor, sure, but I
| never met anyone in the rank and file that could be bothered to
| hate Linux. More than a few of my colleagues played with Linux at
| home in the '00s. I cut my teeth on the commercial UNIXes so
| there wasn't anything interesting about Linux to me until it had
| caught up with them around 2010 or so.
| ronsor wrote:
| People mean Microsoft, the corporation, as a policy. Not every
| employee there literally.
| sunsetSamurai wrote:
| you're trying to rewrite history here, Microsoft used to be a
| well known linux hater, but linux became popular and they had
| no choice but to accept it. Remember the "linux is cancer"
| years...
| ThrowawayB7 wrote:
| I was there a couple decades and you weren't.
| PygmySurfer wrote:
| I was there, too, and I remember all of the FUD from MS. I
| remember the Halloween documents, MS funding SCO's lawsuit,
| etc. MS saw Linux as a threat, especially in the server
| space. The goal was to stomp it out, like they did to
| Netscape.
| nextaccountic wrote:
| The devs weren't, but
|
| https://www.theregister.com/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_c
| a...
|
| Microsoft messaging was very clear at the time
| shimman wrote:
| Might want to schedule an appointment for a neurologist
| because acting like MSFT wasn't anti linux is revisionist
| history that borders on medical intervention.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Dude no one cares about "the rank and file". You're just serfs.
| It's like asking whether John Doe, US citizen who pays for the
| Iraqi invasion, hates Iraqis. Well, no, he's just flipping
| burgers and paying his $3k in tax ($600 of which goes to the
| war effort). He doesn't care about Iraq. But the US does.
|
| Your opinion on the subject is worthless. You are equipment.
| canadaduane wrote:
| "Don't look him up, he's not exactly role model material." I
| don't admire the ethos of putting people in bad boxes.
| nilamo wrote:
| On the otherhand, I greatly appreciate that we don't pretend
| everyone is 100% awesome all the time. We shouldn't hold people
| up as role models that we don't want to emulate, and whatnot.
| philipallstar wrote:
| If we're not pretending everyone is awesome then why
| permanently deselect certain people as role models?
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| One of them is legit a saint and the other almost as much.
| They absolutely are role models, and the way they are talked
| about now is exactly a lesson in the problem. If more people
| emulated them, the world would be a much better place.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| You believe in the commentary and advocacy he provides for
| pedophilia? Why should I and others pay more attention to
| that?
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| There isn't any such "advocacy".
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| I absolutely think we should put people in bad boxes, and would
| go so far as to suggest if you are worried about this
| possibility, you may be worried about which box you belong in.
| ;)
|
| I think the important part is there must always remain a
| possibility for someone to exit that box. Repentance and
| forgiveness are key values in themselves, and we must be able
| to accept people if they can change.
|
| Unrepentant garbage people who still make garbage statements
| and do garbage things, however, can remain in the dumpster
| where they belong until such time they warrant climbing out.
| rbanffy wrote:
| > you may be worried about which box you belong in. ;)
|
| There's also the risk someone very loud decides to put you in
| a box you don't belong in. Eventually you are able to
| demonstrate it, but, in the meantime, you need to deal with
| the consequences.
| einpoklum wrote:
| Your post may be insinuating that you put ESR and RMS in such
| boxes, although you did not actually say that. You might want
| to clarify that point. (And I say that as someone who has
| neither upvoted or downvoted you.)
|
| I'll also say that there are enough aspects of our
| personality and behavior that you might use to justify
| placing someone in the "bad box" that almost everyone would
| be in one; and if you were to relax the criteria so that you
| "average badness" along multiple axes, that comes with its
| own problems.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| I think enough of us have imperfections that we can appreciate
| that people who've done wonderful things have also done some
| very $#!tty things. Someone doesn't need to be a saint to still
| have a wide, positive influence.
| brid wrote:
| The Cathedral metaphor doesn't make any sense since the point of
| the Cathedral is simultaneously to revere God and to be able to
| take in as many "unwashed masses" as possible. Only by self-
| exclusion (explicit external irreverence/scandal) can you be
| excluded.
| larrydag wrote:
| It works for me. Cathedral is analogous to free software being
| a religion. It is a theocratic worldview that has a zealous
| following that must apply the rituals of old. Bazaar is the
| marketplace. It is supposed to be a efficient market metaphor
| for software being transactional and not relational.
|
| Is this a perfect metaphor? I think its a rigid way of looking
| at software on either side. I think it is more grey. I like the
| merits of both sides.
| asveikau wrote:
| But ESR believed in right wing, libertarian adjacent
| politics. He's advocating for deregulated, free market ideas
| in the form of criticizing GNU. In doing this, he was seeking
| out the preferred metaphor and working backwards, rather than
| describing what is.
| jt2190 wrote:
| That is not what Eric S. Raymond (esr) was describing.
|
| GNUnix was developed using the Cathedral-style, Linux was
| developed using the bazaar-style. How Linux development was
| coordinated was thought to be impossible for something that
| had to be as solid as an operating system. The essay is a
| deep dive, exploring the conditions that the Linux project
| needed to ship an OS.
| afiori wrote:
| The metaphor does not refer to the finished building but to the
| building process
| jrowen wrote:
| The author links to another article of theirs called "Open Source
| is Bigger Than You Can Imagine," which hinges on the size of the
| npm registry. npm says "open source" on their landing page, and
| has an "npm Open Source" section of their policies, which places
| no restrictions on how you license your npm package (save for a
| special license to them).
|
| This does seem very bazaar to me, but this would all be deemed
| Not Open Source by the [cathedral/megachurch?] community,
| correct? Do people take issue with npm using the term open
| source?
| dfajgljsldkjag wrote:
| I like the idea that we moved from cathedrals to megachurches
| because it explains why everything feels so corporate now. It is
| easy to forget that the messy bazaar is still underneath all the
| shiny tools we use.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Large endeavours require some level of "megachurchness". Linux
| back then was tiny in comparison with what it is today. So was
| Python. Nowadays we have much larger projects that encompass a
| much larger space than we had in the 1990s. You can't make
| things consistent at these sizes without some governance in
| place.
|
| There are still a lot of space for projects without much
| structure- if you have NSA codenames that aren't public yet
| (and you are not subject to US laws) you can contribute with
| the nsaname tool and have cool names for your servers and
| containers. If you want to help adding glyphs to my 3278 font,
| you can. You can do that to millions of small projects that are
| small enough to not require much structure.
| uncletaco wrote:
| > History will probably remember him as LTT, "Linus The Torvalds"
|
| This is trolling right?
| pstuart wrote:
| > This is trolling right?
|
| Yes, and well done as well. Unlike the other two
| unmentionables, Linus very much worthy of remembrance. Sure he
| was extra grumpy for a long time but that's about the only bad
| thing you can say about the man.
| asveikau wrote:
| There are a lot of tangential, one-liner, throwaway jokes in
| this article.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Yes, everyone knows LTT is Linus Tech Tips!
| tptacek wrote:
| It was a bad essay at the time and I don't think you can make a
| good essay by trying to build off it. Adding "megachurch" to the
| already strained metaphor didn't improve it.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35939383
| networkadmin wrote:
| You're completely wrong. The fact that people are still talking
| about it today proves it has some kind of worth. The essay was
| great.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| People are still talking about null pointers: that doesn't
| mean they were ever a good idea.
| networkadmin wrote:
| That's just how the hardware works. Don't like it? Make
| your own CPU.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| No, the CPU doesn't have a special pointer value which is
| designated invalid (except as far as modern address
| spaces are so large that you cannot possibly map memory
| to each address without mirroring). In many OSs, e.g.
| CP/M, address 0 is actually meaningful. The C idiom of
| cramming sum-type semantics into the nooks and crannies
| of a return value that ordinarily means something
| _entirely different_ is an extremely poor one, and null
| pointers are the poster child: Tony Hoare 's billion-
| dollar mistake.
|
| It's absolutely fine to have a packed representation of a
| sum type "under the hood": this is how Rust implements
| Option<&T> (where T: Thin), for example. It's also fine
| to expose the layout of this packed representation to the
| programmer, as C's union does. But it's a _huge_ footgun
| to have unchecked casts as the default. If not for this
| terrible convention, C wouldn 't have _any_ unchecked
| implicit casts: something like f(1 + 0.5) performs a
| _coercion_ , a far more sensible behaviour.
|
| The only reason we're talking about null pointers at all
| is because they were an _influential_ idea, not because
| they were a good idea. Likewise with the essay.
| leoc wrote:
| While it's narrowly true that CPU instruction sets
| generally don't have a null-pointer concept, I'm not sure
| how important that is: the null pointer seems to have
| been (I don't know enough to be sure) a well-established
| idiom in assembly programming which carried across
| naturally to BCPL and C. (In much the same way that
| record types were, apparently, a common assembly idiom
| long before they became particularly normal to have in
| HLLs.) Programmers _like_ being able to null out a
| pointer field, 0 is an obvious "joker" value, and jump-
| if-0 instructions tend to be convenient and fast. Whether
| you'd want say it's "how the hardware works" it does seem
| to have a certain character of inevitability. Even if the
| Bell Research guys had disapproved of the idiom they
| would likely have had difficulty keeping it out of other
| people's C programs once C became popular. The Hoare
| ALGOL W thing seems to be more relevant to null pointers
| in _Java_ and the like.
| II2II wrote:
| > No, the CPU doesn't have a special pointer value which
| is designated invalid
|
| Sort of right, sort of wrong.
|
| From my understanding: older, simpler, architectures
| treat memory location zero as a normal memory address. On
| x86 and x64, the OS can configure the MMU to treat
| certain pages as invalid. Many years ago, I ran across a
| reference to Sparcs treating accesses to memory location
| zero as invalid. In other words, it depends upon which
| architecture you're dealing with.
| tptacek wrote:
| So the case that you're making here is that CATB is
| renowned amongst the kind of practitioners who think NULL
| pointers are "just how the hardware works". Sounds about
| right.
| dvt wrote:
| I know you're replying to a brand new (likely troll)
| account, but I'm also very confused by this and would be
| curious to learn if there's any truth to it. I personally
| don't really see what a Von Neumann machine has to do
| with null pointers (or how an implication would go
| _either_ way), but maybe I 'm missing something.
| tptacek wrote:
| It has nothing to do with NULL pointers and is instead a
| property of a programming language.
| z3512 wrote:
| NULL pointers working the way they do was a design
| decision made my hardware engineers a long time ago
| because it saved some transistors when that mattered.
| We're past that point now for most ASICs and hardware can
| be changed. Although backward software compatibility is a
| thing too.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Null pointers have nothing to do with the instruction set
| architecture, except as far as they are often represented
| by the value 0. Can you describe the scheme you're
| imagining, whereby their use saves transistors?
| mrkeen wrote:
| They aren't there in asm.
| charcircuit wrote:
| mov rax, qword ptr [0]
| nyc_data_geek1 wrote:
| There are lots of proven bad ideas still being bandies about
| today, and it does not prove they are anything but enduringly
| worthless.
| munificent wrote:
| People are still talking about a flat Earth and creationism.
| Given 8 billion people, there are enough available braincells
| to keep even the stupidest idea floating around in the
| memesphere.
| sethev wrote:
| As you point out in your linked comment, the original essay
| captured the zeitgeist of the time. It also influenced and
| inspired many people. From that perspective, it's hard for me
| to agree that it was bad. However, I don't think the content
| was original at the time (perhaps that's what you mean by bad?)
| - in the sense that ESR wasn't out ahead of people blazing some
| new trail and it also didn't hold up very well factually.
| Taniwha wrote:
| Yeah, it's worth remembering that at the time a compiler cost
| $10k+, an OS $1000s/year - you couldn't work on OS or
| compiler work unless you worked for a big hardware company -
| a whole lot of interesting work was locked away from most
| programmers
| sethev wrote:
| Yes, that is the context in which I first read it (likely
| around 1999 when it appeared on slashdot), as a senior in
| high school with no access to the tools used by most
| professional programmers at the time.
| tptacek wrote:
| FreeBSD 2.0 was 1994.
| sethev wrote:
| Yes, I'm speaking about my experience as I remember it -
| not what was objectively possible for someone with the
| right resources and knowledge at the time :)
| tptacek wrote:
| Right, I'm not so much pushing back on you as I am
| establishing a chronology for CATB. Ordinary people were
| absolutely belting out (what we would now call) open
| source software by the time it was written.
|
| (That's not the biggest flaw in the essay, of course. It
| made predictions, some of which turned out to be
| comically wrong. The true parts of it weren't new, and
| the new parts of it weren't true.)
| jaredklewis wrote:
| Wasn't Cathedral and the Bazaar originally published in
| 1999? Who was paying thousands of dollars a year for an OS
| in 199? And I think GCC was already widespread by then, no?
|
| I didn't start programming until a few years later, but for
| sure by 2002, it seemed to me a given that compilers were
| free. It was my impression that stuff like Borland was
| niche and that serious stuff like Java and C were free.
|
| Not saying you are wrong, just your comment surprised me.
| Maybe I have a revisionist memory or maybe those
| intervening 3 years were quite transformational in the
| industry.
| tptacek wrote:
| The firm I was at in 1997 was shipping commercial
| software with GCC. There were expensive compilers, but
| you weren't required to use them. For Windows builds, I
| think we were Borland C++, which was hundreds of dollars.
| Sun had a pretty expensive compiler for Solaris that I
| remember using for hunting down memory leaks.
| tptacek wrote:
| It was certainly influential. It's just bad on its own
| merits.
| renewiltord wrote:
| The latest thing though is that the megachurches send out these
| evangelist priests who run an inquisition into your amounts
| tithed. These people then go around trying to co-opt the
| machinery of the state to redirect money to the megachurches.
|
| "We should tax everyone to fund open source" they say
|
| "Google should pay a percentage of their gross revenue to the
| Rust Software Foundation" they say
|
| All this is because it's enough for the bazaar to create but the
| author has correctly identified that the purpose of the
| megachurches is to receive tithes.
|
| The Rust megachurch is one of the biggest proponents of this and
| its adherents are always trying to take our money by force
| because we won't give it by will
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46048954
|
| Rust delenda est.
| kiba wrote:
| Free and open source software provide a ton of value to
| businesses and consumers. It's right that tax dollars is used
| to fund what effectively is a public good so that we can all
| benefit from it even more.
| renewiltord wrote:
| There's always a cause and a church. There is an instrument
| for this: your donations can be tax deductible if you give to
| a 501c3 that exists for the public benefit. But that's not
| enough for you guys. Having seen the success of private
| equity dialysis clinics to redirect Medicare funding, you
| have decided that you want a piece of this government revenue
| pie. Enough of this greed.
|
| Rust delenda est.
| Y_Y wrote:
| Alright Cato, but consider that other countries
| successfully spend their budgets on public goods like
| infrastructure and the arts.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Other countries killed 250k/month in gas chambers till we
| came to liberate them, and they still exist under our
| shield. Their opinions are kind of moot.
|
| Rust delenda est.
| Y_Y wrote:
| Normally I'd say read a history book, but it might be
| quicker to read a newspaper.
| shimman wrote:
| Don't both, people like them hold society back. I suggest
| you go out and talk to your physical neighbors about
| taxing big tech, it has a huge amount of support. The
| only question is do you want a democratic administration
| to use said tax revenues to benefit the public or a
| republican administration to benefit a few private
| actors.
|
| It's going to happen and I know what side I'd rather be
| on.
| dgreensp wrote:
| I always interpreted cathedral vs bazaar as being about the
| architecture of large things. Do you build to a master plan? Or
| does everyone do whatever they want? (Within some kind of
| framework, of course.) Like the cathedral of the Java SDKs vs the
| flea market of NPM.
|
| This author seems to have some kind of attitude about
| organization in general--anything with people and process, that
| happens to exist around some project, that might require at least
| a small commitment to be a part of. Like complaining that a flea
| market has a form to sign.
|
| The ability for people to functionally collaborate, with some
| kind of structure, is the key thing that enables building large
| things together.
| TZubiri wrote:
| With that title, I'm clicking and reading all the way through.
|
| I'm writing an article on a similar topic, but it's a critique on
| a popular development style that imports a huge dependency supply
| chain (without concern on if they are cathedral, bazaar, or
| megachurches), and what the benefits of building your thing
| bottom-up has.
|
| If this sounds interesting to you, hacker news reader, you can
| leave a comment and I'll reply with a link once it's published.
| emanueleo wrote:
| The article says "GNU's not Linux". No, it's "GNU's not Unix".
| femto wrote:
| The post referred to the Sovereign Tech Agency
| (https://www.sovereign.tech). The problem that the Sovereign Tech
| Agency is trying to solve seems to be a hard one.
|
| OpenPrinting is listed as a funded project:
|
| https://www.sovereign.tech/tech/openprinting
|
| yet 7 days ago someone who works on OpenPrinting was here and
| stated:
|
| "The whole printing stack is supported by 4 people, 2 of whom are
| doing that since the inception of CUPS in 1999. Scanning is
| maintained by a single person."
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46579361
|
| Isn't this the situation the Sovereign Tech Agency is trying to
| avoid?
| luplex wrote:
| idk, without the sovereign tech agency it would be fewer
| people, or they would have less time to work on the project.
| You can't expect the German government to completely fill any
| need for resources in open source software.
| einpoklum wrote:
| Yikes :-(
|
| This makes me wonder - is there some platform on which people
| who maintain important (or arguably-important) facilities can
| post Wanted ads for volunteer co-maintainers?
|
| I realize that the number of people who would actually be crazy
| enough to browse that platform and answer such ads is pretty
| small... but - it may be noticeably above Zero.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-18 23:00 UTC)