3 ms·

Is it actually feasible to just say "no contributions or support requests will be accepted for this project"? Or to have an hourly rate for support requests ri

Is it actually feasible to just say "no contributions or support requests will be accepted for this project"? Or to have an hourly rate for support requests right up front? ("if you want me to fix this project for your use-case then I will charge you $100/hour to do that") And in the case of abusers, can you add a list of specific indivuals to the licence that are specifically disallowed from using the code in any form for any purpose? e.g. ("anyone is allowed to use this project for any purpose, except the people listed in the shit_list.txt file, who are not allowed to use any of this code for any purpose at any time").

saagarjha 6y ago
As someone who works on open source, sure, you can totally do that–but for me, personally, those aren't really things I would want to do. The first locks out people who want to contribute, which kind of removes half the reason you'd open source something in the first place, the second feels like you could leave in bugs and ransom them for support money, and in the third you are introducing your own subjectivity in ways which frequently do not go as planned. I totally understand why people would do all three, but for me personally they just aren't for me, and I hope you can understand why some people would be turned off by such projects.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Thanks, that's useful. I guess I'm happy to open-source my code for other people to use, but I'm not at all interested in acquiring an unpaid job as "maintainer" (and I really don't care how many other people use my code).
themodelplumber 6y ago
You can always choose to just say those things, but if it's worth doing, the language and approach should make it more likely that the general community response will be better for you than saying nothing at all. To me that means being gentle and professional about wording and boundaries, (which is easier provided one is not absolutely shattered by their work experience). Examples: - We are currently backlogged and may be unable to accept contributions or support requests. - Need support? We may be able to help. Contact us for bespoke personal or commercial support and development rates. (Packages start at...) - We are evaluating license revocations for those who violate our clearly-written and frequently reviewed community standards, which you can review at this link. Support abuse situations are often best dealt with situation-by-situation, though, and unfortunately I didn't see a specific, real-world example in the article. Sometimes just the possibility of someone taking advantage is a turn-off for a good project owner, so I would add that at the very least it's a good idea to have a general communication plan & principles in place before that happens.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Thanks for the info. I'm curious why there is a need for "professional" standards here? I feel that this is, by definition, not "professional" - that would require payment. Also, the imbalance of jerks behaving like jerks but everyone else has to act responsibly: in a work setting, sure - you don't get to choose your colleagues and you need to get along. But in this setting - why can't a maintainer just tell a jerk to fk off?
  - themodelplumber 6y ago
    I think that's an important ground rule, for sure: You don't _have_ to do any of that. You can absolutely tell a jerk to do whatever comes to mind. If you want. I know I've done that before. (I would add that I regretted it because, in part, it complicated community discussions later) In a lot of ways, I think that once you feel like you _have_ to do this or that, especially the professional stuff, your personal values (i.e. "but I don't wanna... This is supposed to be fun, that's what I want more of in my life") will start pushing back on you and you'll have an internal conflict on your hands. However: - I think it's a better idea to identify specific people with whom you can really have fun and let go. "General public" has never been a good return on heavily-subjective communication investments. But with a little calibration? Figuring out who else is going to make this fun and enjoyable? That's where the fun can really pick up. I have fond memories of traveling to different spots in the world, and meeting close FOSS project friends. - There are tons of different degrees of professional standards. You can be humorous, you can give funny examples. Or you can just try to meet a reasonably objective "not a terrible communicator" standard. - It's also about what you're _not_ perceived as: Rude, out for money, vindictive. - Unfortunately the word "professional" really echoes our social values as a group. But that's just the lay of the land right now. Some of the best communication training Joe Average will ever receive is only available in a "professional" setting. The word and system suck in a lot of ways, but there's some good stuff in there if you can set aside the parts that annoy you. Anyway, don't do this professional stuff, it will make your life more tedious and boring, etc. ;-) But those little points of leverage have helped me and that's where I'm coming from.
    - 6y ago

saagarjha 6y ago

As someone who works on open source, sure, you can totally do that–but for me, personally, those aren't really things I would want to do. The first locks out people who want to contribute, which kind of removes half the reason you'd open source something in the first place, the second feels like you could leave in bugs and ransom them for support money, and in the third you are introducing your own subjectivity in ways which frequently do not go as planned. I totally understand why people would do all three, but for me personally they just aren't for me, and I hope you can understand why some people would be turned off by such projects.

marcus_holmes 6y ago
Thanks, that's useful. I guess I'm happy to open-source my code for other people to use, but I'm not at all interested in acquiring an unpaid job as "maintainer" (and I really don't care how many other people use my code).

themodelplumber 6y ago

You can always choose to just say those things, but if it's worth doing, the language and approach should make it more likely that the general community response will be better for you than saying nothing at all. To me that means being gentle and professional about wording and boundaries, (which is easier provided one is not absolutely shattered by their work experience). Examples: - We are currently backlogged and may be unable to accept contributions or support requests. - Need support? We may be able to help. Contact us for bespoke personal or commercial support and development rates. (Packages start at...) - We are evaluating license revocations for those who violate our clearly-written and frequently reviewed community standards, which you can review at this link. Support abuse situations are often best dealt with situation-by-situation, though, and unfortunately I didn't see a specific, real-world example in the article. Sometimes just the possibility of someone taking advantage is a turn-off for a good project owner, so I would add that at the very least it's a good idea to have a general communication plan & principles in place before that happens.

marcus_holmes 6y ago
Thanks for the info. I'm curious why there is a need for "professional" standards here? I feel that this is, by definition, not "professional" - that would require payment. Also, the imbalance of jerks behaving like jerks but everyone else has to act responsibly: in a work setting, sure - you don't get to choose your colleagues and you need to get along. But in this setting - why can't a maintainer just tell a jerk to fk off?
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  I think that's an important ground rule, for sure: You don't _have_ to do any of that. You can absolutely tell a jerk to do whatever comes to mind. If you want. I know I've done that before. (I would add that I regretted it because, in part, it complicated community discussions later) In a lot of ways, I think that once you feel like you _have_ to do this or that, especially the professional stuff, your personal values (i.e. "but I don't wanna... This is supposed to be fun, that's what I want more of in my life") will start pushing back on you and you'll have an internal conflict on your hands. However: - I think it's a better idea to identify specific people with whom you can really have fun and let go. "General public" has never been a good return on heavily-subjective communication investments. But with a little calibration? Figuring out who else is going to make this fun and enjoyable? That's where the fun can really pick up. I have fond memories of traveling to different spots in the world, and meeting close FOSS project friends. - There are tons of different degrees of professional standards. You can be humorous, you can give funny examples. Or you can just try to meet a reasonably objective "not a terrible communicator" standard. - It's also about what you're _not_ perceived as: Rude, out for money, vindictive. - Unfortunately the word "professional" really echoes our social values as a group. But that's just the lay of the land right now. Some of the best communication training Joe Average will ever receive is only available in a "professional" setting. The word and system suck in a lot of ways, but there's some good stuff in there if you can set aside the parts that annoy you. Anyway, don't do this professional stuff, it will make your life more tedious and boring, etc. ;-) But those little points of leverage have helped me and that's where I'm coming from.
  - 6y ago