5 ms·

> “ 2. Open source participants are volunteers and owe you nothing.” Absolutely not. They are compensated with prestige, enjoyment, decision-making power, futu

by mlthoughts2018 7y ago

> “ 2. Open source participants are volunteers and owe you nothing.” Absolutely not. They are compensated with prestige, enjoyment, decision-making power, future employment rewards, and sometimes even money, all of which was their choice to pursue through their labor and time spent on the open source project. The users of open-source projects, upon which the projects themselves depend, are also not obligated to anything, and can for example (very reasonably) become angry and complain if people prioritize pet features instead of community needs, or unilaterally take projects in unsupported directions. There is compensation for the work, and there are still social norms. Nobody cares one bit about who is entitled or not entitled to what.

pgeorgi 7y ago
>> “ 2. Open source participants are volunteers and owe you nothing.” > They are compensated with > prestige, That seems associated with the popularity of a project which is largely outside the control of an author. So: how could one publish code (just in case it's useful to somebody else, which seems to be a nice thing to do) and opt-out of the popularity contest? > enjoyment, People can have the same enjoyment without publishing the code, so there's nothing open source about that. > decision-making power, In their own project? Of course. Again, they could just keep it private, with exactly the same decision-making power - nothing open source about that. > future employment rewards, If a developer ships crap code, that issue seems to sort itself out automatically (who would hire a proud author of unsafe code?) > and sometimes even money, Those paying money certainly can and do make demands. I haven't heard claims about breach of contract in this case, so that's probably not a factor here?
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  > “ That seems associated with the popularity of a project which is largely outside the control of an author.” Huh?
vvillena 7y ago
People have a right to become angry. They absolutely don't have any right to override the will of a project maintainer. By the way, isn't this a great opportunity? The code is open. Fork it. Seize the day. Become a better maintainer, and build a community around your fork. Ensure the community needs and wants are aligned with yours. Steer that ship. Gain prestige. And money, maybe. If someone is a bad maintainer, there will be no community, no prestige, and no money.
- gwd 7y ago
  > People have a right to become angry. No. You have a right to be annoyed, and then fork the project if you want. You do not have a right to become angry unless you're paying for it.
  - vvillena 7y ago
    I'll clarify. I meant that people are entitled to their own emotions, and being angry is ok. What's not ok is to hurl the anger towards somebody. In this case, there are lots of other good options, all of them more productive and compassionate than simply grabbing the pitchforks.
  - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
    No, you do have the right to be angry, even for something you’re not paying for. Absence of a financial agreement does not mean dissolution of basic community norms.
mratsim 7y ago
I didn't think I would see a "I will pay you with exposure" argument.
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  Why? That’s the most likely type of reward you would get from a successful open-source contribution, and should be factored in to consideration of what is a priority.
pzixel 7y ago
> Seems everyone believes there is large team behind actix with unlimited time and budget. (Btw thanks to everyone who provided prs and other help!) For example, async/await took three weeks 12 hours/day work stint, quite exhausting, and what happened after release, I started to receive complaints that docs are not updated and i have to go fix my shit. > enjoyment Riiight
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  I think your quoted comment just proves the point. Without community complaint / critical response, there isn’t incentive for the implementer to do the thing the community needs. If you do X for enjoyment and it actively hinders some other group because they needed Y and using personal priorities to rank addressing X instead of Y is an egregious violation of community norms, people will take action to bring down the enjoyability of doing X and raise the enjoyability of doing Y, like complaining about X and thanking you for Y.

pgeorgi 7y ago

>> “ 2. Open source participants are volunteers and owe you nothing.” > They are compensated with > prestige, That seems associated with the popularity of a project which is largely outside the control of an author. So: how could one publish code (just in case it's useful to somebody else, which seems to be a nice thing to do) and opt-out of the popularity contest? > enjoyment, People can have the same enjoyment without publishing the code, so there's nothing open source about that. > decision-making power, In their own project? Of course. Again, they could just keep it private, with exactly the same decision-making power - nothing open source about that. > future employment rewards, If a developer ships crap code, that issue seems to sort itself out automatically (who would hire a proud author of unsafe code?) > and sometimes even money, Those paying money certainly can and do make demands. I haven't heard claims about breach of contract in this case, so that's probably not a factor here?

mlthoughts2018 7y ago
> “ That seems associated with the popularity of a project which is largely outside the control of an author.” Huh?

vvillena 7y ago

People have a right to become angry. They absolutely don't have any right to override the will of a project maintainer. By the way, isn't this a great opportunity? The code is open. Fork it. Seize the day. Become a better maintainer, and build a community around your fork. Ensure the community needs and wants are aligned with yours. Steer that ship. Gain prestige. And money, maybe. If someone is a bad maintainer, there will be no community, no prestige, and no money.

gwd 7y ago
> People have a right to become angry. No. You have a right to be annoyed, and then fork the project if you want. You do not have a right to become angry unless you're paying for it.
- vvillena 7y ago
  I'll clarify. I meant that people are entitled to their own emotions, and being angry is ok. What's not ok is to hurl the anger towards somebody. In this case, there are lots of other good options, all of them more productive and compassionate than simply grabbing the pitchforks.
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  No, you do have the right to be angry, even for something you’re not paying for. Absence of a financial agreement does not mean dissolution of basic community norms.

mratsim 7y ago

I didn't think I would see a "I will pay you with exposure" argument.

mlthoughts2018 7y ago
Why? That’s the most likely type of reward you would get from a successful open-source contribution, and should be factored in to consideration of what is a priority.

pzixel 7y ago

> Seems everyone believes there is large team behind actix with unlimited time and budget. (Btw thanks to everyone who provided prs and other help!) For example, async/await took three weeks 12 hours/day work stint, quite exhausting, and what happened after release, I started to receive complaints that docs are not updated and i have to go fix my shit. > enjoyment Riiight

mlthoughts2018 7y ago
I think your quoted comment just proves the point. Without community complaint / critical response, there isn’t incentive for the implementer to do the thing the community needs. If you do X for enjoyment and it actively hinders some other group because they needed Y and using personal priorities to rank addressing X instead of Y is an egregious violation of community norms, people will take action to bring down the enjoyability of doing X and raise the enjoyability of doing Y, like complaining about X and thanking you for Y.