3 ms·

I don’t think any blame is due to the author at all. Volunteer project ownership is voluntary, and transferring to another volunteer is the only choice other t

I don’t think any blame is due to the author at all. Volunteer project ownership is voluntary, and transferring to another volunteer is the only choice other than abandonment for a lot of volunteers. Package repositories don’t support monetization and there’s no pool of volunteers associated with the repository itself to take up maintenance of what otherwise would have been abandoned. Would we have preferred if the original creator had simply deleted the repository altogether? The last time someone did that on NPM, it generated deafening howls of rage — but here we are today in the non-abandonment scenario, listening to renewed howls of outrage.

yc12340 8y ago
> Package repositories don’t support monetization and there’s no pool of volunteers associated with the repository itself to take up maintenance of what otherwise would have been abandoned. Your statement contradicts itself: there is a pool of volunteers, — they are the ones maintaining NPM packages to begin with. In fact, the author of event-stream has given control to another person, because he believed, that the guy was an ordinary volunteer like himself. Unfortunately, the reality is a bit more complicated than just that: people will voluntarily help you to maintain your projects, but only if they share your goals. Ideally, one should ensure, that the to-be-maintainer has invested a lot of effort in the project they are trying to take over — reported issues, fixed bugs, added features etc. for considerable amount of time. In other words — ensure, that they can contribute to the project in significant way and move it forward. Otherwise, what is the point of transferring maintenance?!
- floatingatoll 8y ago
  We’re colliding on English imprecisions. I distinguish growth (all unnecessary work) from maintenance (only necessary work: fix serious bugs, no new features, minimize rewrites). My use is the latter, not the former.

yc12340 8y ago

> Package repositories don’t support monetization and there’s no pool of volunteers associated with the repository itself to take up maintenance of what otherwise would have been abandoned. Your statement contradicts itself: there is a pool of volunteers, — they are the ones maintaining NPM packages to begin with. In fact, the author of event-stream has given control to another person, because he believed, that the guy was an ordinary volunteer like himself. Unfortunately, the reality is a bit more complicated than just that: people will voluntarily help you to maintain your projects, but only if they share your goals. Ideally, one should ensure, that the to-be-maintainer has invested a lot of effort in the project they are trying to take over — reported issues, fixed bugs, added features etc. for considerable amount of time. In other words — ensure, that they can contribute to the project in significant way and move it forward. Otherwise, what is the point of transferring maintenance?!

floatingatoll 8y ago
We’re colliding on English imprecisions. I distinguish growth (all unnecessary work) from maintenance (only necessary work: fix serious bugs, no new features, minimize rewrites). My use is the latter, not the former.