4 ms·
One more: * It's surprisingly fun and liberating working on a completely noncommercial project. I have no problem at all with commercial software -- especiall
by dcposch 11y ago
One more:
* It's surprisingly fun and liberating working on a completely noncommercial project.
I have no problem at all with commercial software -- especially if it's free of ads and "microtransactions" and is simply sold to the user for a clear up-front price.
That said, it's fun just shipping something that anybody can work on, with no boss, no formal user requirements, no worries about whether the app will sell or whether the client will pay you.
The only goal here is to make something we're proud of and which users enjoy.
- feross 11y agoAnd... one more: * It's really fun to share project ownership with all the contributors. From CONTRIBUTING.md: > Individuals making significant and valuable contributions are given commit-access to the project to contribute as they see fit. This project is more like an open wiki than a standard guarded open source project. (https://github.com/feross/webtorrent-desktop/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#project-governance https://github.com/feross/webtorrent-desktop/blob/master/CON...) The first time I witnessed this in action was on the LevelUp project (https://github.com/Level/levelup https://github.com/Level/levelup). Since the days of the iojs fork, Node.js itself has adopted the same model. Sharing commit access liberally is awesome for project health, because: - The project can move forward even when the project owner is busy. - It empowers contributors. It makes them feel like owners, because, well, they are. They end up contributing a lot more code. - In the worst cast, it's Git, so bad commits can be backed out. But I've NEVER had to do this, or ever seen anyone else need to do it.