3 ms·
If this is the issue, one of those forks will become the new mainline repo everyone contributes to. Expecting a maintainer to behave the way the community wants
by vvillena 7y ago
If this is the issue, one of those forks will become the new mainline repo everyone contributes to. Expecting a maintainer to behave the way the community wants is unreasonable. Maintainers are not public servants.
I mean, anyone can fork it and become a maintainer, and create new guidelines and inclusive rules that ensure the project is steered in the "right" direction. Isn't it the case?
I understand the "we just want a better actix-web", but there are two conflicting concepts, "better", and "actix-web". The way I see it, "better" is whatever the maintainers think it is, and "actix-web" is a project belonging to its maintainers. No community should ever be entitled to try to steal that. They are welcome to build upon it and fork it. This doesn't mean they have to separate ways forever: some forks live happy parallel lives, as so many Linux patchsets have demonstrated over the years. Projects are free to be born, forked, cross-pollinated, merged together, even die, all at the will of their maintainers.
- cogman10 7y ago> If this is the issue, one of those forks will become the new mainline repo everyone contributes to. I know that is how it is "supposed to work". However, I've very rarely seen it actually work that way. The problem is the "first-mover advantage" and it is a hard one to overcome. If you make a "maintained actix-web" fork, most people will still find their way to the dead project. Even worse, many resources and tutorials will point to the old library. A search for "actix" will almost certainly give confusing and frustrating results to the novice.
- HorstG 7y agoJust as you shouldn't eat everything you just picked up from the sidewalk, you shouldn't just use any code thats available out there. check, check and check again...