melvincarvalho on Nostr: I see it as being much simpler, really. From the beginning, Ubuntu recognized the ...
I see it as being much simpler, really. From the beginning, Ubuntu recognized the importance of transparency to bring in a broad set of developers, and they put in the effort to make that happen. It wasn’t easy, but they invested in it. Nostr, on the other hand, hasn't put in that same level of work. That's why Ubuntu has managed to attract and support a wide range of developers, while Nostr tends to appeal to a smaller group.
I think part of the reason is that Ubuntu brought in a world-class community manager, Jono Bacon, to focus on developer experience. In Nostr, developers often get responses like 'this is dumb' or 'we don’t need this,' which can be pretty discouraging, especially when it comes from influential, often anonymous voices. So, while Ubuntu’s approach works for a diverse group, Nostr’s current dynamic is serving a smaller circle.
I think part of the reason is that Ubuntu brought in a world-class community manager, Jono Bacon, to focus on developer experience. In Nostr, developers often get responses like 'this is dumb' or 'we don’t need this,' which can be pretty discouraging, especially when it comes from influential, often anonymous voices. So, while Ubuntu’s approach works for a diverse group, Nostr’s current dynamic is serving a smaller circle.
quoting nevent1q…85zgI agree with melvincarvalho (npub1mel…5c24) below. Nostr lacks the legitimacy to be considered a community and open project when the governance is so opaque.
It's an experimental hobby, very much like ham radio, which is all fine, but for the protocol to grow it will need to form it's equivalent of W3C.
The community knows this but no one has dared to broach this so far as this will likely be painful process.
Those who have invested most in this project will eventually need this question answering or they will leave nostr for other more commercially viable projects.