The need for other people to do things for us can be minimised by allowing those within our number capable to do it - if they would choose. Already within our number the diverse range of skills, knowlege and experiences make for light work of most requirements. This is only going to increase. Combined with the lack of pressing requirement to conclude much of operations in a timely fashion then this model should be sufficient for some time. Especially with a direct democracy model in place, structured correctly manual maintainence would be remarkably minimal. It's natural operations should account for most things.

You don't need to convince anyone to do anything, really, they look at the project and decide if they want in. Even if not they might be able to offer a few pointers to assist. If it's something we've collectively decided should be happening then it's more than likely finding capable folks that are eager should not represent a particualr issue.

Regarding open source and adjustments to programming - yes, open source is intentionally easy to be adjusted. This is part of it's great strength. But it's not like the adjustments you make impact every possible copy everywhere. Only your copy. Unless you run the project or have applicable rights, the changes go nowhere. Anyone can contribute, but acceptance of the contrbution and merging into the active codebase isn't mandatory. Should anything malicous end up in the codebase and it's removal refused - it's open source, someone will fork it, make it safe, and call it something different(like when truecrypt became veracrypt. It's still not safe, but at least it's absent intentionally weakened algorithyms now). Closed source code is far less trustable as they're already trying to hide something, even if it isn't malicous this attempt makes it more difficult for reuse or repurposements. Even microsoft are lessening in this thinking with even entertaining of open sourcing their OS eventually. In the interim they've started open sourcing things like .Net and Visual Studio in order that programs built with can operate in any environment - just needs compiling for that system. Then you don't need to make a Windows/Linux/Mac/Android version of a program - you can just write one bit of code and it'll work everywhere. Open source can operate a lot like lego, when you don't have to build the bricks making things is a lot easier. Once you can freely take the things other people have made, add to them, change them - it makes it far easier for you to do anything, as most parts involved with getting it done are already functional. Open source is less crying like a five year old child because someone wants to play with your toys, and more sharing your toys so everyone has fun - and the more toys shared the more fun you can have. With respect to cars being powered by open source, and this being reponsible for safety, BMW - a company not known for making stupid descisions or unsafe vehicles - back in 2013 decided open source is the way forwards. http://www.bmw-carit.com/downloads/publications/ResearchOnAnOpenSourceSoftwarePlatformForAutonomousDrivingSystems.pdf. Many .gov - including yours - are going open source. Some already are. It already forms the core of many devices you likely would not suspect as many manufacturers simply change nothing of the code they steal, pay no respect to the licences involved and simply splash their logo in front of open source code.

With regards to the customer service employee, these rules are in place regardless of payment. You had made no mention previously of being ignored repeatedly, and my assumption was not that your spiel was about being penalised or ignored, but instead that of payment somehow magically adjusting the outcome. Instead of some applicable procedures, like performance reviews, peer review of all "official" action, transparent processes, greivance procedures - or anything else that could make a difference in such situations to anyone that can think sanely. Ultimately you couldn't of been that bothered or you'd of thought it's just a mod and gone and found someone higher in the chain that can actually do something, as it seemed like a "professional" company then I'm sure their customer services dept would of been a good place to start complaints about such minimally. I personally would be going straight to individuals responsible for that facet of the service. At their home seems to get the point nailed nicely. If their behaviour was that irrational and the company actually cared what people did in it's name, then such wouldn't be happening many more times once official complaints have been lodged.

Helloe Eyer, What makes you think I did not do just that? Just because I did not mention doing so does not mean you should assume that I did not! As for the open source project, I know the ease of altering the code is it's strength however, it is also it's weakness something that intentionally easy to alter is not safe and the lack of the ability to stop someone, from potentially making possibly dangerous alterations to the software is my concern and given the nature of humans it is a big concern of mine

Again, they don't have the ability to alter every example of running code. Just a copy they make and adjust. Actually getting this into another device should be a whole new ball game, especially once more hardware has initiatives that observe various facets of the system booting,and operating, and compare it to an average snapshot of the system booting, and operating as a layer to note adjustments, and prevents adjusted code from exectuting - which should simutainously stop unautherised modifications and virus/malware spread.

If the are able to adjust the running code in hardware, then it doesn't matter if it's open source or not, they'll know how datasheets work. They'll know how to dig the information out of the web that will allow them to seamlessly interact, or they'll work it out for themselves. The fact the Texas Instruments chips or code was not open source did not prevent the chips being repurposed as missile guidance systems - something significantly "less safe" than a speak and spell. The fact the code wasn't open source didn't prevent someone figuring out how to embed a signal into a DAB broadcast to take control of the infotainment system, and then leverage control over the ECU and from there the PLC's that are actually responsible for critical operations - like brakes, steering, seatbelt pretensioners, airbags, accelleator etc. It really hasn't made cars any safer, in fact completely the opposite - if you want to be alarmed about something to place trust in, it shouldn't be open source but the things put into place that are closed source, drastically flawed, and are unlikley to fixed any time soon. Which if you looked for with any regularity you'd notice a few.

You are right Jason

Not entirely "off-topic"....

There's a current trend in "government" at the moment in various countries to be going more open source, mostly in terms of software packages - I'm saying one step further, and run the .gov similar to an open source project. AKA Direct democracy. Thusly there's minimal requirement for "government employees" and even less to be paying for them.

It required detailed debunking of dangerous misconceptions of along the way. It required response or someone that doesn't know any better could read it and think these to be sane concerns.