Thanks Marc!
Yes to all 4 points, but I think we’d speed the change if we were also a little more proactive.
I think we’d be more effective in arguing that we’re being treated unfairly if we have a simple way of communicating it. I don’t think the institutional folks necessarily understand that they’re exploiting people, or at least don’t think about these issues at the point where they are planning their budgets and writing their grant applications. So, yes, we should break off exploitative ‘collaborations’ but it would also be constructive if we helped them to understand what a fair collaboration should look like (and cost) in the first place. I think the best way to do that would be to make a shared resource that we can all point to.
I’d argue that this could be a small website that both…
- gathers and clearly documents examples of where there is a double standard
and at the same time…
- offers some universal guidelines or principles for best practice, eg
- how to organise inclusive events,
- how to pay people fairly for work,
- how to give credit and support developers of open content (@winnieponcelet’s point above)*
- best practice for designing participatory action research projects so that they are actually beneficial to the communities being studied…
We could use this as a resource to argue for better conditions.
This feels a lot like the early stages of union representation… think the Hans Böckler Stiftung would help us out…? 
*btw - I think this is a really important issue. We’re really not doing our best if the only people who can contribute to open source are those with the luxury of free time. I think we need to find more ways to pay people to create open source content.