One of the tragedies of platform lock-in is that its victims suffer from a kind of trauma bonding where, instead of blaming the proprietary software or walled-garden platform that's locked them in, they find fault with the thing that's actually going to liberate them. That's lock-in syndrome. We've seen a lot of it lately what with the waves of Twitter Migration.
I often hear about how open source is not sustainable because it is “made by volunteers”. But that's misunderstanding the nature of volunteering in open source projects. Volunteering is relative, not absolute and it is not a useful indicator of the sustainability of a project because in independent open source projects all contributors are volunteers.
The shadow may seem more real than the thing itself
Many of the arguments that turn up in the Free and Open Source Software movement(s) – between people who apparently should agree – are because of a difference of view over the appropriate degree of causality that applies to the situation. This conflict between degrees of causality actually powers many other human disagreements too.
Since open source charity leadership comprises the software's biggest fans, a thoughtful approach is needed to representation, conflicts of interest & breach of trust.
Interoperability is good, and breaks down the walls of walled gardens, but it isn't always possible for every feature to be interoperable, as I discovered decades ago writing import filters for a word-processor.
Due to their open, democratic and welcoming nature, volunteer communities can suffer from the attentions of reputation vampires. What are they and how can you spot them?