3 ms·
The key suggestion: "bury the idea that any developer who submits an issue or pull request is automatically entitled to the attention of a maintainer... If you
by firasd 9y ago
The key suggestion:
"bury the idea that any developer who submits an issue or pull request is automatically entitled to the attention of a maintainer... If you’re the leader of one of these projects, charge an annual fee for community membership. Open source, closed community. The message to users should be “do whatever you want with the code, but pay us for our time if you want to influence the project’s future.” Lock non-paying users out of the forum and issue tracker, and ignore their emails."
- unimpressive 9y agoRight, so are there any examples of successful projects which do this? The idea is certainly plausible given that the vast majority of initial contributions to an open source project are based on need: http://climate-action.engin.umich.edu/figures/Rood_Library/Shah_open_source_governance_2006.pdf http://climate-action.engin.umich.edu/figures/Rood_Library/S... However continued involvement seems to be usually based on hobbyist motivations, so you might be setting yourself up to not see anybody else jump on board with you long term.
- innocentoldguy 9y agohttps://crystal-lang.org/sponsors/ https://crystal-lang.org/sponsors/ I'm not sure how successful it is, but Crystal seems to have the right idea.
- ben_jones 9y agoThere's probably a compromise, but often non paying users do contribute in the form of bug reports and user feedback via the very same issue tracker that that they are to be locked out of. I also wander if paying entities have different objectives then non paying entities in such a way that paying entities will corrupt projects or alienate future contributors.