Opinion: Backdrop CMS & "The Maker/Taker Problem"

Hello Everyone,

An issue that has been weighing on my mind over the years is the incestuous relationship that often emerges when an open-source project has not designed within itself a "moral" means of achieving financial sustainability.  This is a major design flaw in the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) model, of which I have been an advocate for over 30 years.

One popular solution emerged many years ago:  Spin up a for-profit Software as a Service (SAAS) company, often with the financial backing of Private Equity.  Both Acquia and WordPress have taken that route, and collectively they power almost half of all extant websites, with WordPress occupying the vast majority of installs.  The Founders of Acquia and WordPress are undoubtedly winners; they are both famous and wealthy.

The problem some people have with the Founders of Drupal and WordPress is they seem to be "compromised".  They have one foot in the "non-profit" FOSS world they started in , and another foot in the "for-profit" SASS world that now dominates their words and actions.

It almost goes without saying, but FOSS and SASS have very different incentive structures, cultures and moral codes - and they attract very different people.

But how does this end up working out?  The usual case is that the FOSS intellectual property is plopped by the Founder into a Foundation with a Board of Governors who basically act as  his "yes men".  The SASS, created by the self-same Founder, occupies a dominant seat in the Foundation, telling the FOSS BoD how to behave and how to vote on Foundation and IP policy or risk getting replaced.  The FOSS is usually further enslaved by the Founder via "donations" from their SASS, thus keeping the FOSS financially dependent.  Furthermore, the SASS maintains effective control over the trajectory of the FOSS  and its IP through "non-solicited donations" of code that serve the agenda of the SASS, sometimes to the exclusion of anyone else.  Very often, the operating budget of the Foundation is co-opted by the SASS in the form of "in kind donations" of technical inputs  like programmer hours, who maintain and extend the FOSS in lieu of cash.  The programmers are directly paid by (and therefore obey) the SASS and its dictums or risk being replaced, much like the aforesaid BoD members.

In short, a complete and utter takeover.

These governance issues are hardly unique to FOSS.  Historically speaking, they plague a lot of companies.  In fact, every company with a CEO who is also the Chairman of the Board.  Lately this has been identified as a serious conflict of interest, and "corporate governance reform" has become a very popular topic of late.

For those wondering, having a SASS achieve "back door effective control" over  its associated Foundation/FOSS by starving it of cash appears to be the most successful and most sustainable model.  

• To a "for profit" oriented person, this might be a perfectly acceptable model.
• To a "non profit" oriented person, this might appear to be deeply repugnant

Backdrop CMS, like any enterprise, must eventually navigate itself into a financially sustainable pattern, or it will likely founder on the rocks of insolvency.  But if Backdrop CMS does nothing to avoid falling into the pattern that seems to have ensnared WordPress and Drupal alike, it is very likely going to follow that pattern because it seems to be the "best" one for survival.  This may ultimately require Founders to adopt measures that are likely to make its current population of "non profit' oriented people extremely unhappy.

Both Drupal and WordPress serve as cautionary tales in this manner.  At least WordPress is unapologetic - the Founder of Drupal is attempting to take the "high road" by talking about the umbrella when the real problem, and one he is clearly not owning up to, is the rain:

https://dri.es/solving-the-maker-taker-problem

Awareness is the wellspring of prevention.  

g.

----