4 ms·

Agreed. I think there is quite a lot of entitlement on the internet and as Klabnik pointed out: on reddit. And while it's definitely a maintainer's responsibili

Agreed. I think there is quite a lot of entitlement on the internet and as Klabnik pointed out: on reddit. And while it's definitely a maintainer's responsibility to make their code serve the interest of its users to the best of their ability, fundamental disagreement should result in forks, not vitriol. It's moments like this that I reflect on the past and the public and virtual forums I have participated in... and how my own attitude shifts in favor of cooperation when I must couple my face with my words. And I wonder if others feel the same.

nradov 7y ago
Open source maintainers have no such responsibility. Anything you get for free is a gift, and giving a gift doesn't create any ongoing responsibility for the giver. Take it or leave it.
- zpallin 7y ago
  I disagree here, but only within the confines of the language I used. A maintainer of open source code is willingly submitting their own work to be used for free by others. They have no responsibility to extend it at all, but to maintain it is to do so in the interest of the users... they have a responsibility to do it to the best of their ability, and if not, the maintenance should be given to someone who will.
  - HorstG 7y ago
    No. Just no. They may do so to the worst of their abilities. Thats their prerogative. The only limit might be publishing something that is actively intended to do harm. But I can't imagine a plausible example of that...
    - zpallin 7y ago
      You might not believe this, but I agree with you! Doing something to the best of your ability includes the right to be able to suck at it also. I am pressing for absolutely no standard of quality, yet you somehow think that's the case. It's not. I just think that if you're going to call yourself a maintainer of something, then you better at least pretend.
      - HorstG 7y ago
        I disagree. I really think doing an intentionally crappy job is acceptable. Not even pretend. I think it is okay to really half-arse it. Or break it. Or be lazy. Or whatever. Except maybe intentionally harm someone.
        zpallin 7y ago
        Intentionally doing a crappy job is harmful. And if you're intentionally doing any of the things you listed above, then you're not a maintainer. That simply is not what maintaining means.
umanwizard 7y ago
> it's definitely a maintainer's responsibility to make their code serve the interest of its users to the best of their ability No it isn't, unless those users are paying.
- zpallin 7y ago
  If that's the case, then why open source it at all? Just make people pay.
  - umanwizard 7y ago
    There are many possible reasons, and yes, one is because they might hope it's useful to other people. That's not the same as being "responsible" for such usefulness.
    - zpallin 7y ago
      And I agree completely. Except when you claim you're a "maintainer." If you do, that is supposed to mean something. And I think it means you're going to maintain the code. That's the only responsibility I am talking about.
      - umanwizard 7y ago
        Maintainer is a term of art that just means you’re the person in charge of the project.
        zpallin 7y ago
        Well, no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_maintainer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_maintainer
  - bloodorange 7y ago
    Why is it a problem for you if someone is willing to give their work to the world in a way that allows others to benefit from it? Why is that not enough? Why do they also have to keep doing more after that? If you disagree with the notion of someone publishing their work under a free software or open source license being useful for the world, then please post an AskHN about it and you will have _plenty_ of material to convince you of this perspective. However, I think most reasonably clever people can already come to the conclusion themselves.
kd5bjo 7y ago
Actualy, it’s the maintainer’s responsibility to make their code serve their own interests. Those often, but not always, align with the users’ interests.
- zpallin 7y ago
  Then why open source at all if there is not some interest in helping others who have "aligned interests"?
  - pgeorgi 7y ago
    So that others can pick the pieces they need, if they care to. It's an offer to the world, not a sales pitch.
    - zpallin 7y ago
      If you post random code on the internet at your leisure, sure. When you have a marketing campaign for your open source tool... then yea, it's a sales pitch.

nradov 7y ago

Open source maintainers have no such responsibility. Anything you get for free is a gift, and giving a gift doesn't create any ongoing responsibility for the giver. Take it or leave it.

zpallin 7y ago
I disagree here, but only within the confines of the language I used. A maintainer of open source code is willingly submitting their own work to be used for free by others. They have no responsibility to extend it at all, but to maintain it is to do so in the interest of the users... they have a responsibility to do it to the best of their ability, and if not, the maintenance should be given to someone who will.
- HorstG 7y ago
  No. Just no. They may do so to the worst of their abilities. Thats their prerogative. The only limit might be publishing something that is actively intended to do harm. But I can't imagine a plausible example of that...
  - zpallin 7y ago
    You might not believe this, but I agree with you! Doing something to the best of your ability includes the right to be able to suck at it also. I am pressing for absolutely no standard of quality, yet you somehow think that's the case. It's not. I just think that if you're going to call yourself a maintainer of something, then you better at least pretend.
    - HorstG 7y ago
      I disagree. I really think doing an intentionally crappy job is acceptable. Not even pretend. I think it is okay to really half-arse it. Or break it. Or be lazy. Or whatever. Except maybe intentionally harm someone.
      - zpallin 7y ago
        Intentionally doing a crappy job is harmful. And if you're intentionally doing any of the things you listed above, then you're not a maintainer. That simply is not what maintaining means.

umanwizard 7y ago

> it's definitely a maintainer's responsibility to make their code serve the interest of its users to the best of their ability No it isn't, unless those users are paying.

zpallin 7y ago
If that's the case, then why open source it at all? Just make people pay.
- umanwizard 7y ago
  There are many possible reasons, and yes, one is because they might hope it's useful to other people. That's not the same as being "responsible" for such usefulness.
  - zpallin 7y ago
    And I agree completely. Except when you claim you're a "maintainer." If you do, that is supposed to mean something. And I think it means you're going to maintain the code. That's the only responsibility I am talking about.
    - umanwizard 7y ago
      Maintainer is a term of art that just means you’re the person in charge of the project.
      - zpallin 7y ago
        Well, no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_maintainer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_maintainer
- bloodorange 7y ago
  Why is it a problem for you if someone is willing to give their work to the world in a way that allows others to benefit from it? Why is that not enough? Why do they also have to keep doing more after that? If you disagree with the notion of someone publishing their work under a free software or open source license being useful for the world, then please post an AskHN about it and you will have _plenty_ of material to convince you of this perspective. However, I think most reasonably clever people can already come to the conclusion themselves.

kd5bjo 7y ago

Actualy, it’s the maintainer’s responsibility to make their code serve their own interests. Those often, but not always, align with the users’ interests.

zpallin 7y ago
Then why open source at all if there is not some interest in helping others who have "aligned interests"?
- pgeorgi 7y ago
  So that others can pick the pieces they need, if they care to. It's an offer to the world, not a sales pitch.
  - zpallin 7y ago
    If you post random code on the internet at your leisure, sure. When you have a marketing campaign for your open source tool... then yea, it's a sales pitch.