2 ms·

Sure, I agree it’s still logistically challenging. I’m just claiming the hard part is the ideological hurdle of getting the original core devs of the project to

by mlthoughts2018 8y ago

Sure, I agree it’s still logistically challenging. I’m just claiming the hard part is the ideological hurdle of getting the original core devs of the project to willingly facilitate frequent “changing of the guard” where the burden of critical new features and design is wholeheartedly given to new and intermediate developers of the project, to graciously let other people take the reins and have the core devs with an attitude of service to their community of users, fixing bugs, adding small feature enhancements, and particularly creating excellent documentation and tutorials. That’s the first step. Templates, disqus boards, SO, etc., aren’t going to save you if the core devs view the open source project as a walled garden where they pick and choose what to work on based on a need to “be the one” who is responsible for milestones of implementation.

thrower123 8y ago
What's the incentive to those developers to take on this pain-in-the-ass corporate kind of work, rather than just doing the work that they enjoy that made the project noticeable in the first place? Nothing is owed to anybody, if it's being made into unpleasant management work, you can just pick up your ball and go home and do something else. I'm not really sure I want new developers doing core work on a project, and would be somewhat skeptical of projects that did adopt such practices without heavy oversight.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  The incentive is just if they want the project to survive and thrive and continue. They may not want this, or may value their pleasure of hacking on it higher than long-term liveness. I’m not making any normative judgments about _whether_ they want one set of preferences or the other, only commenting that it turns out (normatively) badly, from the perspective of the community around the project, if they don’t prioritize the overall liveness of the project (which comes at the cost of “doing as they please”).

thrower123 8y ago

What's the incentive to those developers to take on this pain-in-the-ass corporate kind of work, rather than just doing the work that they enjoy that made the project noticeable in the first place? Nothing is owed to anybody, if it's being made into unpleasant management work, you can just pick up your ball and go home and do something else. I'm not really sure I want new developers doing core work on a project, and would be somewhat skeptical of projects that did adopt such practices without heavy oversight.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
The incentive is just if they want the project to survive and thrive and continue. They may not want this, or may value their pleasure of hacking on it higher than long-term liveness. I’m not making any normative judgments about _whether_ they want one set of preferences or the other, only commenting that it turns out (normatively) badly, from the perspective of the community around the project, if they don’t prioritize the overall liveness of the project (which comes at the cost of “doing as they please”).