Organisational Processes in Decentralized Software
CC Attribution 2.0 Belgium:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Roussel, Natacha
zeyev
We would like to invite developers for a round table to discuss the specificity of the organization of decentralized software, and to address organizational issues that are crucial for the survival of the projects we love. F/LOSS development is often mostly organized along a the sequence of its commits, while the idea that a great software starts with one person,is a quite common narrative in F/LOSS (think about linux or git). Even community-led projects often tell their history centering it on one hero (see for example the history of open street map:). So what about decentralized software? From a feminist standpoint we are not satisfied with the "hero narrative", as we feel it doesn't fully represent the complexity and the values of decentralized software projects. Furthermore, this narrative can be detrimental for the long term sustainability of decentralized projects because it can overshadow the importance of thinking about organizational problems and community health. Instead, we would like to invite developers for a round table to discuss the specificity of the organization of decentralized software, and to address organizational issues that are crucial for the survival of the projects we love. How to build and sustain projects which are not only decentralized from a technical perspective, but also from an organizational one? How to share responsibilities so that code and infrastructure work but people do not burn out -making entire projects at risk to disappear? And how to tell if a project is anyway destined to disappear or if there is an organizational bug which can be fixed? During this roundtable we wish to invite developers from Fosdem's decentralized room to discuss those issues but we are still in the phase of contacting them.
 We are, first I will say, I want to talk about organizational processes in the centralized software. Thanks so much for the presentation. I think we will have something to add. Thank you. Good morning. Hi. Thanks for hosting us because we really feel a bit as a thank you for coming up in here. Just a little bit of a note. We need a bit of an intuition with the historians at talk. And I just want you to be very conscious here that I only have white faces in front of me or most people. So we are going to talk about organizational processes in the decentralized world. And the reason why we are here, we wanted to be in the decentralized world because of the great energy of every decentralized and federated project that is happening right now. We consciously were right before the activity of one table just submitting the great movement and energy that is there. And there is, we had in the slide here showing the regular options and the number of software that are adopting a trend for the cause or for the cause in desire to go make a counterpoint to existing monopolies and wealth of the capitalism that is already mentioned. And it's huge, I think the least we've been looking through is at least four softwares maybe more, every, it's a scoreboard, every domain is a scoreboard. And it's doing it with good energy right now. So, no, there's no slide, I'm sorry. I'm not sorry, but I'm sorry. So, when we are here, it's a question of the way the long history of the decentralized community that I would not go over. We all have, many people here have different visions on it, there has been a lot of happening. But what we want to question is really the fact that this is a presented as a technical solution, a really great technical solution that only discussed as a technical solution. And we feel that a gap. So why it's a really amazing technical solution is because obviously it multiplies the sources of information. Obviously it's great redundancy information that allows for a lot of resilience. It allows for the emergence of local instances and many services, each of them having their own policy, their own, they want to make a lot of conduct, their own self-consciousness. So, yeah, the question is how about seeing our project together? Are you talking about the time that we spent resolving the slides? No, I don't. I'm not saying anything. So what we want to achieve, we want to challenge, so we think it's important to voice what we need to achieve, which is challenging the localistic situation, developing the centralized software based on shared command protocol. And what we have at our disposal to do so is human material, not only technical material, we have people. But while we can, as a Scottish politician, protocol itself does not display any political opinion that we all agree on. And we do community itself as a tendency not to be so eager. So how to get organized over the achieving that? We have existing community media organizations that are discussed and are underused, there are forums, there are not many use. There are, if you feel working with, there are many means of organization, but often not that much. In our research, I say we found that many policies were set on the blog, and one published from blog and a response to a blog, and there's no structure, conversation having another topic. Okay, so one of the ways in which these kind of programs are made visible is also through the having all the greater of such content. everyone knows that it's not like that. But, to me, it's also a model of a work model which is not helping, not for the personal impact, but also for the community and large. This is because, of course, there are many problems that can arise in this kind of dynamics where there is this hero which somehow sets the level of the collaboration-specific project. So the person who knows becomes the example. And since we also, another concept which is interesting, we don't know about that, is the concept of two operas. So the ones who do more are also the ones who take the decision in the end. And this is something which can work, but also has some problems. Because, for example, in this kind of context, sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between a behavior which is authoritative, which is a behavior of someone who says or does something, because he knows something, or a behavior which becomes authoritarian in a way. Because, for example, another narrative is that of the benevolent dictator. No, it's not fun. It's not nobody. We don't want to have a dictator, even though he or she are benevolent. We want to break this narrative. Another problem is the fact that these kinds of processes are detrimental for the no-term sustainability of projects. Because if there is just one person or two people in the world, what happens is people are now, or they just decide to do something else and realize the project doesn't exist. And of course, it needs to be perspective on ways in which a project can be improved. Because there is only one person who takes all the decisions and who somehow is regarded by the community as a kind of hero, anyway, most everything, because it's the one or she's the one who works most. Then we also need opportunities to improve a project through a certain process. But the good thing is that these kinds of processes can be educated. I don't know if they can be resolved at all, because in the end, we are people and there are some people who like to take leadership on and some people don't like it, so there will always be some kind of imbalance in a group. So what we can do is to keep this imbalance in track and discuss about it, and also do something about it. And we will do something on the more local level or on the more global, a little more global approach. If we focus on the local level and here our feminist principles and practices come into play, two practices which come from the feminist tradition which could be useful in also the software communities are first the practice of care and this is something which I think that in the past years I think also discuss more. So it's the idea that if we are part of a group, everyone needs to take care of the other. So if you are part of a group and you see someone who is going to go down, you can tell them, hey, maybe you are in too much, maybe can I help you somehow or do you want to slow down, et cetera. And the second point is skill sharing, which is of course not just a feminist practice, it's something which exists and you can handle it, but it is true that in the past years in tech, there have been many feminist tech skills sharing events made in a kind of more welcoming environment and things like that. And what is important about skill sharing is that it's something that sometimes is taken from granted if you are in a group, if there is someone who knows how to do something, okay, there is that someone. So that kind of skill is not shared, but this also is what leads to the euro and to the person who is the only one who knows how something works. So also having this kind of sharing in a group, for example, always working in pairs is something which can decrease this kind of operatority problem. But the truth is that we didn't really mostly want to talk about care and ultimately nice human beings because we think that you are perfectly capable of understanding that and there are a lot of resources on the internet. What we really want to talk about is power, power in communities, in projects and how this kind of factor is. And how to give it. I will quickly read the definition that we found in the truth feminist wiki that is truthfeminist.wiki.com. But intersectionality, I don't have an idea if the terms are familiar, maybe to some of us. So it's a dealing with power in a systemic and long term perspective. And the concept used to describe the ways in which oppressive institution racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, eglism, xenophobia, racism, et cetera, et cetera, all the eisms are often interconnected. When you are into one of those things, you might be into others of one and they cannot be examined separately from another. So as the other definition says, the concept first came from the Gothic-Border Cretion in 1989 and is largely used in critical theories, especially in the history when it's in the system. Why is that used here? Because we want to be able to have a honest and conversation about power to understand the whole type of it, where we come from is useful in this conversation, how people are tied to one another is useful in this conversation, how we can change the relationship that we have been tying in between us since the generation is here today. So there are two aspects we talk about on the internal level, the pre-war narrative, but also on the external level. Who are we as power structures in relation to other power structures that we are facing? And this needs to be acknowledged. I always say when I see Google logo on our screens, it hurts me because I don't want to see them and I want us to be proof that on our situation and on our position, in front of them, we are not on any whole level and this should be a coward. Yes, so the idea is that resounding through the lenses of intersexuality is something which is not going to give answers, but it's something which can help in asking questions about what we do. So the idea, we are talking again mostly on an external level, so how we can more effectively counter those powers which are in direct, for example, the surveillance, the intelligence, the information, and so on, so in an indirect way, can harm our policies and our selves. So, okay, so, okay, so yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah, so again, we are just about asking questions and so we have listed some questions which could be interesting to discuss in the centralized projects and which are concerned with the wider impact of the project. So the first, one first question which could be asked is okay, what is the impact of my work on the job market? What is the impact of, in which way can I do what I am doing in a way which makes it also easier for other people to earn a living on that, for example. Another question could be what kind of users and especially non-users I am excluding in my projects. So for example, if I think about very nice something for, I don't know, ant, and then there is a wide category of people, maybe older people who are not familiar with the technology are not willing to learn it, then you are excluding all these people. So maybe try to think also how to produce what you want to do in a more kind of analogic way or how to include the pool of the possible users of the technology. And another very important thing, what is the impact of my product on the wider environment? For example, we have a lot of electronic waste, so how heavy is your system, your software, your whatever, does it work on the computer and all these kind of things? Do I need to use it on a phone or it doesn't work? And etc. etc. So yes, in general, in what kind of ways I could be the thing you are doing, actually being reinforcing these issues, and then putting them in the party. Yeah, and this is to close up. So it's thinking of an organization in a systemic way, because the system we're living in is the whole society. It has the original, the interdependency everywhere, so we need to include external actors in developing decisions, even if you are not directing on songs. We should not take them as externalities. Of course we should focus on positive speech, but not only. We should also actively deal with the presence of problems and not be afraid of voicing them. We can respond on a larger scale. So this was your position. Yes, so the idea to conclude is that if we want to decentralize software projects in order to imagine a world which could exist outside of the capitalism narrative and a world in which technology could really be used as a tool to help ourselves, not as a tool to be present, to be controlled, then we do need to produce and establish more visible narratives about existing counterpowers and known etymology, technological projects and communities. And what was so cool, we wanted to say, sorry, our slides cost a little bit, mixed up from the first version, so we kind of lost the train in the end. But so again, the idea is that it's okay to be political and to voice political values even in the decentralized software projects because in the end the people who are doing technology are not doing technology just for themselves, but they're doing it for a larger society. And so there are ways to make the involvement of this larger social group more visible. So for example, if there is some political issue in which the members of your community feel to be talk about, for example, global warming or the people dying in the Mediterranean, what's wrong about, I don't know, expressing actively solidarity towards these people or writing on your website that this is a problem for you and for your projects, and that you don't want people who don't think that is a problem, including your software, for example. Because in this way it would be impossible to strengthen the relationship between different communities and different groups, which we, or without the technology, share the same aim of fostering a world in which we can live more freedom and more autonomy and decide what we want to do with our lives. So yeah, and just to probably have a bit of a rendezvous that I hope will maybe address some issues. Thank you. Thank you. I want to say actually that you mentioned about saying our political views, our concerns, stuff like that. But I want to say that a lot of people in the tech industry think that we're only talking to tech and tech is only making the whole thing. But in reality it is every decision that you make in your life, as well, we've heard by both of us, or we. So I want to raise the question of how can we raise awareness that to people that you can have a rationale and have discussions about problems, like I had a discussion with Ume and Gloria about the future of the internet, the web, and about the market share of Chrome and Firefox. And he understood my, the fact that I was presenting to him the danger of the web. But he always went back and came up with a new region just by his position. So I want to, I don't know what's the way to kind of raise awareness and make people see certain things that end shortly usually that take, rather that speaks, so we get groups that have the sameança for their current use or use, as what we could do while in Accords. And I want to understand what you say. I wrote a quote for CRISPR in this room saying, strong so that people that address and we will stay sitting in the building without hiding anything. It's going to happen because the code is going to make it happen. It's also going to happen because the code is going to make it happen. Sorry, thank you very much. Can I just say something? Yeah, for me the way to make this issue more visible is just to talk about them. So name them, name the fact that there is politics and technology and there is politics that can be called. And we just need to be aware of that and discuss it. So today we mentioned it, you can mention it again at the next conference. You will participate or discuss it in your community. So the only way to make this more visible is to talk about them.
 We are, first I will say, I want to talk about organizational processes in the centralized  software.  Thanks so much for the presentation.  I think we will have something to add.  Thank you.  Good morning.  Hi.  Thanks for hosting us because we really feel a bit as a thank you for coming up in here.  Just a little bit of a note.  We need a bit of an intuition with the historians at talk.  And I just want you to be very conscious here that I only have white faces in front of me  or most people.  So we are going to talk about organizational processes in the decentralized world.  And the reason why we are here, we wanted to be in the decentralized world because of  the great energy of every decentralized and federated project that is happening right  now.  We consciously were right before the activity of one table just submitting the great movement  and energy that is there.  And there is, we had in the slide here showing the regular options and the number of software  that are adopting a trend for the cause or for the cause in desire to go make a counterpoint  to existing monopolies and wealth of the capitalism that is already mentioned.  And it's huge, I think the least we've been looking through is at least four softwares  maybe more, every, it's a scoreboard, every domain is a scoreboard.  And it's doing it with good energy right now.  So, no, there's no slide, I'm sorry.  I'm not sorry, but I'm sorry.  So, when we are here, it's a question of the way the long history of the decentralized  community that I would not go over.  We all have, many people here have different visions on it, there has been a lot of happening.  But what we want to question is really the fact that this is a presented as a technical  solution, a really great technical solution that only discussed as a technical solution.  And we feel that a gap.  So why it's a really amazing technical solution is because obviously it multiplies the sources  of information.  Obviously it's great redundancy information that allows for a lot of resilience.  It allows for the emergence of local instances and many services, each of them having their  own policy, their own, they want to make a lot of conduct, their own self-consciousness.  So, yeah, the question is how about seeing our project together?  Are you talking about the time that we spent resolving the slides?  No, I don't.  I'm not saying anything.  So what we want to achieve, we want to challenge, so we think it's important to voice what we  need to achieve, which is challenging the localistic situation, developing the centralized software  based on shared command protocol.  And what we have at our disposal to do so is human material, not only technical material,  we have people.  But while we can, as a Scottish politician, protocol itself does not display any political  opinion that we all agree on.  And we do community itself as a tendency not to be so eager.  So how to get organized over the achieving that?  We have existing community media organizations that are discussed and are underused, there  are forums, there are not many use.  There are, if you feel working with, there are many means of organization, but often not  that much.  In our research, I say we found that many policies were set on the blog, and one published  from blog and a response to a blog, and there's no structure, conversation having another  topic.  Okay, so one of the ways in which these kind of programs are made visible is also through  the  having all the greater of such content.  everyone knows that it's not like that.  But, to me, it's also a model of a work model  which is not helping, not for the personal impact,  but also for the community and large.  This is because, of course, there are many problems  that can arise in this kind of dynamics  where there is this hero which somehow  sets the level of the collaboration-specific project.  So the person who knows becomes the example.  And since we also, another concept which is interesting,  we don't know about that, is the concept of two operas.  So the ones who do more are also the ones  who take the decision in the end.  And this is something which can work,  but also has some problems.  Because, for example, in this kind of context,  sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference  between a behavior which is authoritative,  which is a behavior of someone who says  or does something, because he knows something,  or a behavior which becomes authoritarian in a way.  Because, for example, another narrative  is that of the benevolent dictator.  No, it's not fun.  It's not nobody.  We don't want to have a dictator,  even though he or she are benevolent.  We want to break this narrative.  Another problem is the fact that these kinds of processes  are detrimental for the no-term sustainability of projects.  Because if there is just one person  or two people in the world,  what happens is people are now,  or they just decide to do something else  and realize the project doesn't exist.  And of course, it needs to be perspective  on ways in which a project can be improved.  Because there is only one person who takes all the decisions  and who somehow is regarded by the community  as a kind of hero, anyway, most everything,  because it's the one or she's the one who works most.  Then we also need opportunities  to improve a project through a certain process.  But the good thing is that these kinds of processes  can be educated.  I don't know if they can be resolved at all,  because in the end, we are people  and there are some people who like to take leadership on  and some people don't like it,  so there will always be some kind of imbalance in a group.  So what we can do is to keep this imbalance in track  and discuss about it, and also do something about it.  And we will do something on the more local level  or on the more global,  a little more global approach.  If we focus on the local level  and here our feminist principles and practices  come into play, two practices  which come from the feminist tradition  which could be useful in also the software communities  are first the practice of care  and this is something which I think that in the past years  I think also discuss more.  So it's the idea that if we are part of a group,  everyone needs to take care of the other.  So if you are part of a group and you see someone  who is going to go down, you can tell them,  hey, maybe you are in too much,  maybe can I help you somehow  or do you want to slow down, et cetera.  And the second point is skill sharing,  which is of course not just a feminist practice,  it's something which exists  and you can handle it,  but it is true that in the past years  in tech, there have been many feminist tech skills  sharing events made in a kind of more welcoming environment  and things like that.  And what is important about skill sharing  is that it's something that sometimes  is taken from granted if you are in a group,  if there is someone who knows how to do something,  okay, there is that someone.  So that kind of skill is not shared,  but this also is what leads to the euro  and to the person who is the only one  who knows how something works.  So also having this kind of sharing in a group,  for example, always working in pairs  is something which can decrease  this kind of operatority problem.  But the truth is that we didn't really  mostly want to talk about care  and ultimately nice human beings  because we think that you are perfectly capable  of understanding that  and there are a lot of resources on the internet.  What we really want to talk about is power,  power in communities, in projects  and how this kind of factor is.  And how to give it.  I will quickly read the definition  that we found in the truth feminist wiki  that is truthfeminist.wiki.com.  But intersectionality, I don't have an idea  if the terms are familiar, maybe to some of us.  So it's a dealing with power in a systemic  and long term perspective.  And the concept used to describe the ways in which  oppressive institution racism, sexism,  homophobia, transphobia, eglism, xenophobia,  racism, et cetera, et cetera, all the eisms  are often interconnected.  When you are into one of those things,  you might be into others of one  and they cannot be examined separately from another.  So as the other definition says,  the concept first came from the  Gothic-Border Cretion in 1989  and is largely used in critical theories,  especially in the history when it's in the system.  Why is that used here?  Because we want to be able to have a  honest and conversation about power  to understand the whole type of it,  where we come from is useful in this conversation,  how people are tied to one another  is useful in this conversation,  how we can change the relationship  that we have been tying in between us  since the generation is here today.  So there are two aspects we talk about  on the internal level, the pre-war narrative,  but also on the external level.  Who are we as power structures  in relation to other power structures  that we are facing?  And this needs to be acknowledged.  I always say when I see Google logo on our screens,  it hurts me because I don't want to see them  and I want us to be proof that on our situation  and on our position, in front of them,  we are not on any whole level and this should be a coward.  Yes, so the idea is that resounding through  the lenses of intersexuality is something  which is not going to give answers,  but it's something which can help in asking questions  about what we do.  So the idea, we are talking again mostly  on an external level, so how we can more effectively  counter those powers which are in direct,  for example, the surveillance,  the intelligence, the information,  and so on, so in an indirect way,  can harm our policies and our selves.  So, okay, so, okay, so yes.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, so again,  we are just about asking questions  and so we have listed some questions  which could be interesting to discuss  in the centralized projects and which are concerned  with the wider impact of the project.  So the first, one first question which could be asked  is okay, what is the impact of my work on the job market?  What is the impact of, in which way can I do  what I am doing in a way which makes it also easier  for other people to earn a living on that, for example.  Another question could be what kind of users  and especially non-users I am excluding in my projects.  So for example, if I think about very nice  something for, I don't know, ant,  and then there is a wide category of people,  maybe older people who are not familiar with the technology  are not willing to learn it,  then you are excluding all these people.  So maybe try to think also how to produce  what you want to do in a more kind of analogic way  or how to include the pool of the possible users  of the technology.  And another very important thing,  what is the impact of my product on the wider environment?  For example, we have a lot of electronic waste,  so how heavy is your system, your software,  your whatever, does it work on the computer  and all these kind of things?  Do I need to use it on a phone or it doesn't work?  And etc. etc.  So yes, in general, in what kind of ways  I could be the thing you are doing,  actually being reinforcing these issues,  and then putting them in the party.  Yeah, and this is to close up.  So it's thinking of an organization in a systemic way,  because the system we're living in is the whole society.  It has the original, the interdependency everywhere,  so we need to include external actors in developing decisions,  even if you are not directing on songs.  We should not take them as externalities.  Of course we should focus on positive speech,  but not only.  We should also actively deal with the presence of problems  and not be afraid of voicing them.  We can respond on a larger scale.  So this was your position.  Yes, so the idea to conclude is that  if we want to decentralize software projects  in order to imagine a world which could exist  outside of the capitalism narrative  and a world in which technology  could really be used as a tool to help ourselves,  not as a tool to be present, to be controlled,  then we do need to produce and establish more visible narratives  about existing counterpowers  and known etymology, technological projects and communities.  And what was so cool, we wanted to say,  sorry, our slides cost a little bit,  mixed up from the first version,  so we kind of lost the train in the end.  But so again, the idea is that it's okay to be political  and to voice political values  even in the decentralized software projects  because in the end the people who are doing technology  are not doing technology just for themselves,  but they're doing it for a larger society.  And so there are ways to make the involvement  of this larger social group more visible.  So for example, if there is some political issue  in which the members of your community  feel to be talk about, for example, global warming  or the people dying in the Mediterranean,  what's wrong about, I don't know,  expressing actively solidarity towards these people  or writing on your website that this is a problem  for you and for your projects,  and that you don't want people who don't think  that is a problem, including your software, for example.  Because in this way it would be impossible  to strengthen the relationship between different communities  and different groups, which we, or without the technology,  share the same aim of fostering a world  in which we can live more freedom and more autonomy  and decide what we want to do with our lives.  So yeah, and just to probably have a bit of a rendezvous  that I hope will maybe address some issues.  Thank you.  Thank you.  I want to say actually that you mentioned about  saying our political views, our concerns, stuff like that.  But I want to say that a lot of people in the tech industry  think that we're only talking to tech  and tech is only making the whole thing.  But in reality it is every decision that you make  in your life, as well, we've heard by both of us,  or we. So I want to raise the question of how can we raise  awareness that to people that you can have a rationale  and have discussions about problems, like I had a discussion  with Ume and Gloria about the future of the internet,  the web, and about the market share of Chrome and Firefox.  And he understood my, the fact that I was presenting to him  the danger of the web.  But he always went back and came up with a new region  just by his position.  So I want to, I don't know what's the way to kind of raise  awareness and make people see certain things  that end shortly usually that take,  rather that speaks, so we get groups that have the same ança for their current use or use,  as what we could do while in Accords.  And I want to understand what you say.  I wrote a quote for CRISPR in this room  saying, strong so that people that address  and we will stay sitting in the building without hiding anything.  It's going to happen because the code is going to make it happen.  It's also going to happen because the code is going to make it happen.  Sorry, thank you very much.  Can I just say something?  Yeah, for me the way to make this issue more visible is just to talk about them.  So name them, name the fact that there is politics and technology and there is politics that can be called.  And we just need to be aware of that and discuss it.  So today we mentioned it, you can mention it again at the next conference.  You will participate or discuss it in your community.  So the only way to make this more visible is to talk about them.
Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__0_2015.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__2016_2507.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__2508_2831.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__2832_3587.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__3588_3911.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__3912_5543.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__5544_5987.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__5988_6155.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__6156_6611.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__6612_7031.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__7032_7283.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__7284_10775.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__10776_10919.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__10920_16499.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__16500_16559.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__16560_19151.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__19152_29219.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__29220_29267.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__29268_29483.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__29484_29975.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__29976_30767.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__30768_30839.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__30840_30935.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__30936_30995.png Organisational_Processes_in_Decentralized_Software_roundtable_open_to_decentralized_software_develo__30996_34523.png