3 ms·

> But without making it clear to anyone else in the volunteer community that that's what you've done. You mean like pretty much 100% of everything else going o

> But without making it clear to anyone else in the volunteer community that that's what you've done. You mean like pretty much 100% of everything else going on in a typical open source community? I’d wager at least 99.99% of the users don’t even knows who or how many maintains a piece of software, nor if updates are based on external patches or (core) internal development. They just sit there entitled and expect free (gratis) software which works for them without providing anything in return. I’m not saying that because I’m a bitter maintainer, but it’s just a fact of life. You couldn't inform these users about any changes at all even if you wanted to, because they’re simply not involved and they never will be. Anyway, if they cared, if they were somewhat involved, they would know. As it stands, it’s their own fault for blindly trusting random code from the internet. And really: mostly changing maintainer for a new, more motivated one usually works out better, even for these users, so why should the burnt out previous maintainer feel bad about this?

pdonis 7y ago
> I’d wager at least 99.99% of the users don’t even knows who or how many maintains a piece of software I'm not talking about users. I'm talking about other developers who are using the package, and who deserve to know when the package's maintainer changes. > it’s their own fault for blindly trusting random code from the internet Developers aren't trusting random code from the internet; they're trusting a particular package maintained by a particular person who, from past experience, they have reason to trust. But if that maintainer hands the project over to someone else without telling all those other developers, that's betraying the trust those other developers put in that maintainer. > mostly changing maintainer for a new, more motivated one usually works out better, even for these users, so why should the burnt out previous maintainer feel bad about this? Because it's the previous maintainer's job to tell other developers when he turns over the job to someone else. Failing to do that means the previous maintainer is basically saying what you said above: it's those other developers' own fault for blindly trusting my code, hahaha, sucks to be you. Is that the ethos you want other open source developers to follow?
- x0x0 7y ago
  The majority of developers are freeloaders who deserve exactly what they gave Dominic, ie nothing. If the act of posting code on github creates rights or an obligation to others, it rapidly becomes untenable to do that thing. It wasn't Dominic's job, because you (and everyone else!) wasn't paying him.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > If the act of posting code on github creates rights or an obligation to others, it rapidly becomes untenable to do that thing. He didn't just post the code on github; he had publish rights on npm, which is where node developers are supposed to publish code they want other node developers to use. Lots of other node developers used it. Then he gave the publish rights on npm to someone else and didn't tell anyone. If you're entirely ok with that, you're basically telling any node developer not to trust npm. Which basically breaks all of node development. Is that your intent? > It wasn't Dominic's job, because you (and everyone else!) wasn't paying him. I see you are not clear on the concept of a volunteer job. If lots of people use your code and you don't give them any indication that (a) you're no longer actively maintaining it (as someone noted in the github comment thread, he could have archived the repo long before this happened since he was no longer actively maintaining it and hadn't been for years), and (b) that you gave the npm publish rights to someone else, then, whether you like it or not, it was your job and you failed to do it. You made a promise to all those other developers and then you broke it. If your argument is that nobody will do open source development for free under those conditions, then there is a lot of evidence over the past few decades to prove you wrong. But nobody is forcing you to do open source development for free under those conditions. It's everyone's free choice whether they're willing to put their code out there and whether they're willing to actively maintain it for free once it's out there. What you can't do is change your mind and not tell anyone. If Dominic realized that he didn't want to commit to maintenance for lots of developers for free, he should have archived the repo to make that clear.
    - x0x0 7y ago
      > It's everyone's free choice whether they're willing to put their code out there and whether they're willing to actively maintain it for free once it's out there. Literally not according to you. One 'git push origin master' and our contributor has signed up to your requirements. Dominic made no promises to anyone -- he offered the world something and said they could use it if they wanted. Full stop.

pdonis 7y ago

> I’d wager at least 99.99% of the users don’t even knows who or how many maintains a piece of software I'm not talking about users. I'm talking about other developers who are using the package, and who deserve to know when the package's maintainer changes. > it’s their own fault for blindly trusting random code from the internet Developers aren't trusting random code from the internet; they're trusting a particular package maintained by a particular person who, from past experience, they have reason to trust. But if that maintainer hands the project over to someone else without telling all those other developers, that's betraying the trust those other developers put in that maintainer. > mostly changing maintainer for a new, more motivated one usually works out better, even for these users, so why should the burnt out previous maintainer feel bad about this? Because it's the previous maintainer's job to tell other developers when he turns over the job to someone else. Failing to do that means the previous maintainer is basically saying what you said above: it's those other developers' own fault for blindly trusting my code, hahaha, sucks to be you. Is that the ethos you want other open source developers to follow?

x0x0 7y ago
The majority of developers are freeloaders who deserve exactly what they gave Dominic, ie nothing. If the act of posting code on github creates rights or an obligation to others, it rapidly becomes untenable to do that thing. It wasn't Dominic's job, because you (and everyone else!) wasn't paying him.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > If the act of posting code on github creates rights or an obligation to others, it rapidly becomes untenable to do that thing. He didn't just post the code on github; he had publish rights on npm, which is where node developers are supposed to publish code they want other node developers to use. Lots of other node developers used it. Then he gave the publish rights on npm to someone else and didn't tell anyone. If you're entirely ok with that, you're basically telling any node developer not to trust npm. Which basically breaks all of node development. Is that your intent? > It wasn't Dominic's job, because you (and everyone else!) wasn't paying him. I see you are not clear on the concept of a volunteer job. If lots of people use your code and you don't give them any indication that (a) you're no longer actively maintaining it (as someone noted in the github comment thread, he could have archived the repo long before this happened since he was no longer actively maintaining it and hadn't been for years), and (b) that you gave the npm publish rights to someone else, then, whether you like it or not, it was your job and you failed to do it. You made a promise to all those other developers and then you broke it. If your argument is that nobody will do open source development for free under those conditions, then there is a lot of evidence over the past few decades to prove you wrong. But nobody is forcing you to do open source development for free under those conditions. It's everyone's free choice whether they're willing to put their code out there and whether they're willing to actively maintain it for free once it's out there. What you can't do is change your mind and not tell anyone. If Dominic realized that he didn't want to commit to maintenance for lots of developers for free, he should have archived the repo to make that clear.
  - x0x0 7y ago
    > It's everyone's free choice whether they're willing to put their code out there and whether they're willing to actively maintain it for free once it's out there. Literally not according to you. One 'git push origin master' and our contributor has signed up to your requirements. Dominic made no promises to anyone -- he offered the world something and said they could use it if they wanted. Full stop.