An interesting idea, sounds good, but the details would matter. For example resolving how payments work for developers / contributors on a particular project so that the cut was fair and consistent with input value (not just line / commit counts)will be challenging. Would also suggest that each collective would likely have a different governance model. Could you have your project in more than one collective? Why not I guess, but lots to details to resolve, and, knowing the FOSS community could get contentious quickly ... But best of luck with the basic idea, I like where they're thinking
I'm working on a solution where the "FOSS collective" aspect can be decentralized and represented as a protocol. I think it simplifies a lot of things.
People still have to work and pay the bills and have to negotiate salaries. If anything, an organization representing a large fraction of the FOSS community would be less contentious.
