It's often hard, really hard, but I'm ineffably lucky to get to do things which I consider profoundly important.

Amidst all of the uncertainties, I'll keep trying to do things that clearly need doing.

There's a risk that we'll need such scalable tools instantly (or yesterday); there's also a risk that our greatest crises will "resolve" via spectacular turns which create new heroes & renewed hopes for kinder & gentler bureaucracies, momentarily sidestepping deeper, ultimately unavoidable problems.

The importance of such scalable tools could, frankly, rise or fall PRECIPITOUSLY at any moment due to our cultural polarization and political duress. Many of my works have been driven by political crises from 2016 onward, perhaps reaching a new crescendo with the POTUS' latest deranged ravings.

No one has to use these particular (open source) primitives, but I've been steadily confident that I'm on the right technical track for many years.

One of my key challenges is to effectively explain why I consider such governance primitives to be utterly essential for scalable, modular, decentralized, cosmo-localized project management, organizational development & interoperability.

p.s. volunteer overwork & burnout is a key general organizational problem (and injustice) which I'm quite familiar with through personal experience

Thanks for sharing, and that doesn't surprise me. People might put too much stock in official outcomes (such as written agreements) which are then rules-lawyered, disregarded and/or unenforceable. I'm on the anarchism spectrum & suspect that these systems use some of the bureaucracy which I oppose.

In your study of this issue, have the researchers suggested any reasons for the supposed failure of those systems?

I'm not allied with any efforts to institutionalize large-scale restorative justice systems. Restorative justice is something which I try to live daily, mostly informally, but it can be partially formalized.

I.e. your question isn't pertinent to my interests, yet it's interesting (cont.)