I think the thing I feel conflicted about all the plans to make #FOSS sustainable that I've seen seeming like they are a popularity contest. The people who are the best at selling themselves are the ones who win.

On one hand, it seems fair that the more useful your code is, the more you should be compensated. So code that hardly anyone uses is less valuable to the world, and so the author *should* be paid less.

On the other hand, writing some incredibly useful code and nobody finding out about it, and thus nobody using it, makes it seem less valuable.

So unless you're out there tooting your own horn, telling everyone about how great your thing is, your creation isn't considered valuable. Put another way, promoting things is rewarded more than creating them.

And if you think that the good creations rise to the top, I disagree. I don't think those who have risen to the top of the software world are the best. Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook... are they on top because they are technically superior? I don't think so. They have some innovative technology, but more importantly, they have huge marketing teams, and the ability to tell hundreds of millions of people about their latest thing with the flick of a button. Then the media outlets echo their press releases, then people react to it, then stories are written about people's reactions.

None of this happens when, for example, someone apps support for some NIP to their nostr relay software.

Maybe the answer is to find a nostr crew. Developers who focus on making hella efficient, secure and reliable technology together. This crew doesn't fuck around. They have a posse who spreads the word about the groups work so the group can focus on the engineering. Maybe they have dome server operators who run their software so they can stay focused on development and not get tired up in operations. If you've actually made it all the way to this part of this post and know of such a crew, let me know about them. If you read this and thought "fuck yeah, I want THAT" let me know. Maybe you are just the kind of person I want to connect with.

If you follow me, you probably know I work on Signet, qmail, automating installation of FOSS tools with ansible, and have minor contributions to Qubes, Orbot, Seedsigner Ruuvi tag software, and a few others. These are the kind of things I'm into. I also have a considerable amount of other contributions under other nyms that I don't talk about here.

nostr:nevent1qqsyvkylc05trjj3ya30a4dxzjqrduhkvn6e2278seja3ver0a0vsrgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzvupzp5cw4x82vh5487g6hylkkv82284n83gxlp75nasq5yu6auq249g3qvzqqqqqqypllhz4 

 imo they are both necessary, but there's a reason marketers get paid the big bucks. as a person with decades of marketing and copywriting background, i only choose to work with projects in this capacity that i believe in. "if you build it, they will come." doesn't appy here. many devs and engineers have a hard time connunicating the value of their product in terms of benefits to the end user. 

 But I really WANT "if you build it, they will come" to be true! 

 Me too! This should be true. Marketing is such a waste of resources. 

I have been thinking about this for far too long. If you build it, they should come!

Things didn't use to be like the way we have it now.  If you built something great, kings used to value your product. To get an audience to the king was also easier as the servants wanted to be the ones that bring the best to the king. 

It is possible to build a system where "if you build it, they will come" will hold true. Builder and distributor separation will unlock immense value.