Maker Taker - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

Maker Taker 🔗 **Source:** [Maker Taker](https://ma.tt/2025/09/maker-taker/?fbclid=IwZnRzaAMqzyxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHlvdQcLdzlLzHQu73Hs6CRMFZBkiXk7VBuBkZEcRimVbLHVc8mGQj8PofXf1_aem_oh5X3vL76Pe-Fs8uA-qzUA) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: > - #open-source > - #wordpress > - #maker-taker > Author: Matt Mullenweg > Source: Matt Mullenweg’s blog (ma.tt) > Reference: https://ma.tt/2025/09/maker-taker/ > date created: 2025-09-07 20:31 > > # 🏷️ Title: Maker / Taker (Matt Mullenweg) >  ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [🧮 Logical validity (w/ Fallacies & Tone)](#-logical-validity-w-fallacies--tone) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) --- ## 📝 Summary **The gist:** Matt Mullenweg shares a short, upbeat post sparked by a meme about “makers vs takers” in open source. He tweaks the meme with AI so at least one person raises their hand to make their software open source, then argues that the industry has matured: many leaders now treat open source as part of their calling, and businesses increasingly see it as foundational. He frames open source as the best way to build a shared future. **Read:** https://ma.tt/2025/09/maker-taker/ **Context link:** Dries Buytaert’s deeper essay on “Maker/Taker” dynamics: https://dri.es/solving-the-maker-taker-problem **Why it matters (Axios-style):** - **Signal:** Re-centers the conversation on norms, not legal drama, by celebrating participation and moral commitment. - **Between the lines:** A gentle nudge to be “the raised hand”—to contribute, not just consume. - **Reality check:** The maker/taker tension is real; communities need structures to recognize and reward contribution (e.g., credit systems, 5ftF). - **What to watch:** Concrete mechanisms in WordPress to measure, reward, and route commerce toward “makers.” --- ## 📖 Main Content **What Matt does:** 🔹 Starts with a meme contrasting people who want *free OSS* vs. those willing to *open their own software*. He uses AI (Google’s “AI Studio”) to generate a variant with one raised hand, creating a new counter-meme. 🔹 Links to Dries Buytaert’s “Maker/Taker” essay as a framing device. 🔹 Reflects on the arc from the “Halloween documents” era to today’s widespread acceptance of OSS in business and leadership. 🔹 Ends with an aspirational claim: open source is our best bet for a shared technological future. **Notable lines (direct text-fragment links):** - “so impressed that so many… have adopted the moral framework of open source being part of their calling.” https://ma.tt/2025/09/maker-taker/#:~:text=so%20impressed%20that%20so%20many - “Open source is the best way we have to set the foundation for future generations…” https://ma.tt/2025/09/maker-taker/#:~:text=Open%20source%20is%20the%20best%20way **Connections:** 🔹 Dries’ piece details *how* to align ecosystems around contribution credit and incentives (Drupal as model): https://dri.es/solving-the-maker-taker-problem 🔹 Historic backdrop: Microsoft’s leaked “Halloween documents” recognized OSS as a strategic threat and helped galvanize the open-source movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents 🔹 WordPress’s *Five for the Future* (5ftF) positions contribution as a norm: https://wordpress.org/five-for-the-future/ --- ### 🗒️ Notes 🔹 **Meme → Message** - Raises awareness that “consuming OSS” and “contributing to OSS” are different behaviors. - AI-assisted counter-meme reframes the norm: someone does raise their hand. 🔹 **Moral framing** - Claims a cultural shift: leaders increasingly view OSS contribution as a calling. - Suggests business objections about OSS “security” are less prevalent now. 🔹 **Movement lens** - Proposes OSS as a lens for evaluating products, governance, and equity. - Elevates sustainability and stewardship as community responsibilities. 🔹 **Future-facing claim** - OSS is called “the best way” to build a shared, equitable foundation. - Invites readers to *be* the raised hand—participation over passivity. 🔹 **Link-outs that ground the frame** - Dries: a practical roadmap for credit, incentives, and governance. - Historical arc from anti-OSS memos to normalized OSS adoption. --- ## 📚 References - Matt Mullenweg, “Maker Taker” (2025-09-07): https://ma.tt/2025/09/maker-taker/ - Dries Buytaert, “Solving the Maker-Taker problem” (2024-10-02): https://dri.es/solving-the-maker-taker-problem - Wikipedia, “Halloween documents”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents - WordPress, “Five for the Future”: https://wordpress.org/five-for-the-future/ - Drupal.org docs on contribution credit ranking: https://www.drupal.org/drupalorg/docs/marketplace/contribution-credit-weight-and-impact-on-ranking --- ## 🗣️ Paraphrase 🔹 **Original idea:** Many leaders now treat OSS as part of their professional ethos. **Paraphrase:** A growing share of designers, engineers, and executives consider contributing to open source a core responsibility, not an afterthought. 🔹 **Original idea:** OSS lays the best foundation for future generations. **Paraphrase:** If we want tomorrow’s technology to benefit everyone, building it in the open—with shared rights and responsibilities—is our strongest path. --- ## 📰 Newsletter **Headline:** Maker vs. Taker: Be the Raised Hand **Blurb:** This week, Matt Mullenweg riffs on a classic meme—everyone wants free open source, fewer want to open their own code. He flips it with AI and a simple challenge: be the raised hand. Meanwhile, Dries Buytaert outlines practical steps for balancing “makers” and “takers” via contribution credit. If you mentor new devs or run a product team, point them to **Five for the Future** and adopt contribution goals in your roadmap. Open source isn’t a free lunch; it’s a potluck. Bring a dish. Links: Matt’s post → https://ma.tt/2025/09/maker-taker/ · Dries on Maker/Taker → https://dri.es/solving-the-maker-taker-problem · 5ftF → https://wordpress.org/five-for-the-future/ --- ## ✅ Action Items **Purpose:** Align this article with Developer Advocacy, contributor engagement, and your OSPO trajectory. 🔹 **Adopt a “Raised-Hand” KPI in GoDaddy’s OSS strategy** - Track % of teams with at least one monthly OSS contribution PR. - Reportables: #PRs, #docs updates, #meetups hosted, #mentorship hours. 🔹 **Create a “Maker Scorecard”** - Combine 5ftF pledges + measurable contributions (code/docs/community). - Publish an internal dashboard; share highlights externally quarterly. 🔹 **Route Opportunity to Makers** - Prefer vendors/partners with transparent OSS credits (Drupal-style ranking). - Bid criteria: ask for recent OSS contributions and time-boxed commitments. 🔹 **Educator’s edge** - Build a contributor onboarding workshop: Git basics → “first PR” → “first review”. - Package recordings and slide decks; release as CC-BY resources. 🔹 **OSPO-ready governance** - Draft a neutral contribution recognition policy that spans brands/business units. - Pilot with one product line, then scale; publish an annual OSS impact report. 🔹 **Community health** - Encourage leaders to sponsor contributor time (5ftF) and office hours. - Establish a mentorship rota for new contributors (pair “maker” with “new hand”). **Prompt for future article reviews (paste into your workflow):** “Assess how this piece can drive *maker behavior* at GoDaddy: identify contribution-ready tasks, teaching moments, and community incentives; map to 5ftF and a Maker Scorecard; note governance or DEIB implications; propose one low-lift pilot and one executive-level metric.” --- ## 🧪 Hypotheses - H1: Public recognition of contributions (credits, dashboards) increases ongoing contribution rates in commercial teams. - H2: Procurement policies that prefer “makers” shift market share toward contributing vendors without reducing quality or increasing cost. - H3: Mentorship-first onboarding improves first-time contributor retention more than documentation alone. --- ### 📊 Methodology - **Design:** Mixed-methods. - **Data sources:** GitHub/WordPress.org contribution logs, internal time tracking, event attendance, survey NPS from contributors. - **Experiments:** - A/B test team-level recognition (scorecards vs. none). - Pilot vendor RFPs with contribution criteria (before/after analysis). - **Analysis:** Interrupted time-series for contribution volume; logistic regression for contributor retention predictors; qualitative coding of mentor feedback. --- ### ❓ Questions - What minimal recognition reliably nudges teams from “taker” to “maker”? - Which contribution types (docs, triage, teaching) produce the best retention? - How should WordPress formalize credits without discouraging non-code work? --- ### 🔮 Future Research - Comparative study of Drupal’s credit system vs. emergent WordPress credit norms. - Economic modeling: redirecting customer spend toward makers—ecosystem effects. - Governance patterns that keep credit systems fair and hard to game. --- ### 💡 Implications - **For practice:** Clear credits + procurement nudges can rebalance ecosystems. - **For policy:** Foundation-backed, neutral oversight improves fairness and trust. - **For knowledge:** Better metrics clarify which contributions sustain community health. --- ## 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment - **Reading level:** Plain language; estimated Grade 8–10. Very accessible. - **Visual:** Meme images present; consider adding an infographic mapping maker/taker flows. - **Aural:** No audio; add a 60-second read-aloud clip or short podcast blurb. - **Verbal:** Metaphor and concise narrative present; link a glossary for newcomers. - **Kinesthetic:** None; add “first contribution” exercises or checklists. - **Logical:** Argument is qualitative; include a simple causal diagram (contribution → ecosystem health). - **Social:** Invite discussion in comments + link to contributor forums or Make teams. - **Solitary:** Add reflection prompts: “What can I open this month?” - **Naturalistic:** Not applicable; optionally tie OSS stewardship to sustainability analogies (commons, regeneration). --- ## 📊 Accessibility Assessment - **Semantic structure:** Post uses headings; confirm semantic HTML on theme. - **Alt-text:** Ensure the meme images include descriptive alt text and context. - **Keyboard navigation:** Verify focus states and skip-links on theme. - **Contrast & readability:** Check color contrast; keep body text ≥16px. - **Text resizing:** Ensure reflow without horizontal scroll on mobile/200% zoom. - **Media:** Provide captions/transcripts if adding video/audio later. --- ## 🌍 DEIB Assessment - **Cultural relevance:** Global OSS examples could broaden resonance. - **Inclusive language:** Neutral and welcoming; define “maker/taker” for newcomers. - **Neurodiversity support:** Short paragraphs help; add bullets/checklists for action. - **Representation:** If using imagery, diversify characters and contexts. - **Psychological safety:** Invite good-faith disagreement; add community guidelines links. --- ## 🧮 Logical validity (w/ Fallacies & Tone) **Tone of voice:** Warm, encouraging, slightly playful; optimistic about OSS. **Structure:** Anecdote → reflection → normative claim. **Positive reasoning present** - **Causal reasoning (light):** More makers → healthier commons (needs evidence). - **Analogy:** The meme as an analogy for ecosystem behavior clarifies the gap between usage and contribution. - **Appeal to shared values:** Stewardship and future generations make a coherent ethical case. **Gaps / potential weaknesses** - **Hasty generalization risk:** Broad claim of cultural shift without data. - *Fix:* Link contribution stats or case studies (e.g., 5ftF data, project dashboards). - **Appeal to sentiment:** Inspirational close without mechanism. - *Fix:* Add one actionable step: where to contribute this week. **DARVO scan:** No signs of Deny/Attack/Reverse-victim tactics. The post avoids personal accusations and centers pro-social norms. --- ## 🎯 Conclusion Matt’s post is short but catalytic: it reframes the maker/taker conversation as an invitation to raise your hand. Pair that ethos with concrete structures—credits, 5ftF commitments, and procurement nudges—and you get a playbook that rewards contribution and sustains the commons. Now is a good time to measure, recognize, and route value toward the makers.