9 ms·

On the flip side though, lots of FOSS project maintainers want a large user base for fame and glory but also want to omit support for that large user base to in

by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

On the flip side though, lots of FOSS project maintainers want a large user base for fame and glory but also want to omit support for that large user base to instead pursue whatever interests the maintainers, as opposed to what is evidently needed, all under the disingenuous guise that not being directly compensated entitles any arbitrary planning policy. While users have no justification for being rude or insulting, they absolutely do have justification to be frustrated if you want to have your cake (compensation in the form of notoriety due in large part to the willingness of others to actually use your FOSS project) and eat it too (not prioritize plans, bug fixes, or features in accordance with what that user base needs & requests, over and above what you prefer). I’m not saying this applies to you specifically, but it does apply to many FOSS projects, and arguments of infinite entitlement to strand users who bring your project notoriety because the compensation isn’t in currency format are totally specious and deserve to be met with (polite) frustrated pushback.

jhasse 6y ago
> not being directly compensated entitles any arbitrary planning policy. It does though IMHO.
nextlevelwizard 6y ago
You present no argument at all. FOSS is FOSS. Creator or current maintainer owes you and other users exactly nothing. They are putting their stuff up for you to use if you see value in it. You can report bugs and make feature requests, but no one is under any obligation to even read your bug reports or feature requests. If you want your specific thing fixed right now then do it yourself.
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  Grandparent comment is “I maintain a very popular piece of FOSS software as my full time job”; FOSS means libre not necessarily gratis, it could still be paid for, with paying customers or employer-users in this case and owe them a lot.
  - ganafagol 6y ago
    That's correct, but misses the point. If you are paid for FOSS work then whoever pays you can expect you to do certain things. But that's the "get paid" part, not the "FOSS" part. It would be the same with paid work on proprietary software.
    - jodrellblank 6y ago
      Yes it would be the same with paid work on proprietary software, which is why the comment I was replying to "FOSS is FOSS. Creator or current maintainer owes you and other users exactly nothing." is a non-sequitur, it doesn't hold up. Whether you have the source code and rights to redistribute it is orthogonal to whether the creator or current owner has a contract with you and "owes" you anything. Having access to the source doesn't automatically mean the owner/maintainer owes you nothing. I think the comment is promoting only the "FOSS == gratis" side of getting things for free ($0) and not considering the original "FOSS == insight and rights, even if paid for" side of things.
      - nextlevelwizard 6y ago
        Even if you pay for piece of software that does not entitle you any say on the direction the software is going or priority on your bug reports or feature requests. There can be explicit contract where you are funding specific feature, but just donating to a project does not entitle you to anything. You can stop using the software if it does not provide you any use. That is the only thing you are entitled to.
        jodrellblank 6y ago
        I never said "payment ENTITLES you to support", I said having access to the source does NOT mean NO entitlement to support, one does not control the other either way because access to the source and paid support contracts are separate things. > "there can be explicit contract where you are funding specific feature" Yes, I said as much when I said you can have a contract for support and also have FOSS software. Here, you are downvoting me and agreeing with me. There can be a explicit contract where you have the source source and also are entitled to some development that you're paying for. > "You can stop using the software if it does not provide you any use. That is the only thing you are entitled to." NO, here you are changing your mind again and narrowing it back down to "it was free so you have no rights". You cannot make the judgement that because someone has open source software, they didn't pay for it, and you cannot make the judgement that if they have open source software, they are not entitled to anything. The three are DIFFERENT things. The original point of FOSS was to avoid vendor lockin, not to get free downloads from Github. In case it isn't extremely clear, downloading a free and foss tool from Github does not entitle you to feature requests or support. Donating to it does not either. Saying "every FOSS user has no entitlement to support or feature requests because the code is FOSS" is incorrect, and a bad idea for the programming/tech industry to be spreading, partly because a lot of developers would benefit from spreading the idea of paid FOSS because they want to work on it and get paid, and partly because users would benefit from the increase in paying for software and also getting the source as part of that, including whatever entitlement to support paying would have got them normally.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  Sure, but that doesn’t mean I have to view it as an acceptable choice if a maintainer leverages a large user base for notoriety and then fails to prioritize that user base’s needs. They can do that, and I can express frustration that it’s an unacceptably poor failure if they do, in more ways than just declining to use their software.
  - The_Colonel 6y ago
    I think there's a big assumption that maintainer does the work to gain notoriety. Many of them (myself included) do it completely anonymously. Many others have a traceable identity but still they may be motivated by other things.
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      If it appears on a resume, it’s done for notoriety. If it’s fully anonymous and never appears on a resume, then I concede you are right in that case, but I think that’s an extreme minority of cases among the types of projects the thread is discussing.
      - The_Colonel 6y ago
        > If it appears on a resume, it’s done for notoriety. There might be such people, but I doubt such projects would be very successful or notorious. Being able to put something on CV does not provide that long lasting gratification needed to develop/maintain software in the long run. If it's about your CV only, then there are probably more effective ways to achieve better returns. (In my case I don't put my F/OSS on my CV and I don't think I'm "extreme minority")
        mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        As a hiring manager, a large fraction (easily greater than 50%) of resumes that I see do list OSS projects and contributions as accomplishments and technical experience. Maybe I just see an unusual slice of the OSS maintainer world, but it’s very common.
katbyte 6y ago
If you have issues with how a project is being run fork it and do it yourself
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  Or, politely object, raise issues & frustrations and lobby the maintainers to make different choices.
TheDong 6y ago
Your comment misunderstands the point of some most software. Yes, some open source software (like Red Hat Enterprise Linux) is run by a company and has an expectation of support. The vast majority of free software, from the GNU tools like gcc to the linux kernel to clang, does not have that expectation. All free software has a license that lets you fork it (by definition)... and that's where your reasonable expectations should end. If you think the maintainer isn't doing a good job working on the right issues or maintaining the project, that's not the maintainer's problem. That's your problem. If you have the abilities to fork it and implement those changes yourself (realizing the maintainer does not have to incorporate those changes of course), go for it. If you can't, well, your expectations are totally wrong. If a maintainer actively looks for "fame" or actively pushes more people to use their software, that does not mean they have to provide support. That does not mean they have to live up to some standard you've made up in your head. They should make a reasonable attempt to uphold any specific promises they make, but that's about all they owe people, and if they promise to build a feature, then burn out, that's okay too really.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  > “ If you think the maintainer isn't doing a good job working on the right issues or maintaining the project, that's not the maintainer's problem. That's your problem.” This is backwards. The maintainer is expecting attention and users. By alerting the maintainer to issues, I would be helping them (using my own extra effort, eg bug reports, feature requests). The nuclear option for a user is to just throw their hands up, not even try to lobby the maintainer to make better choices, and quit using the project. The nuclear option for a maintainer is to completely ignore the user base whose attention they need and whose efforts on bug reports or whose frustrations give them free labor to understand their projects fault points and fix them, and instead say, “you’re not paying me with money, only with attention, time and effort, so I owe you nothing” (as if owing was any part of any of it) and ignore their feedback. Either side can go for the nuclear option. But wouldn’t we hope the social contract in FOSS has a higher standard and people try to both give and receive reasonable feedback, and people try, at least, to consider users’ needs after users have invested attention, word of mouth review, effort on bug reports, etc. before “going nuclear” and gainsaying everything with “you don’t pay me in the form of currency so I owe you nothing.”
cycomanic 6y ago
So according to your argument the users are compensating the FOSS maintainers by using the software? That's an interesting concept of compensation, does this apply in other domains, e.g. if I go to a soup kitchen which donates free food is my eating that food compensation? I'm really trying to understand this argument.
- rodgerd 6y ago
  It's analagous to the brain-rotting line of thinking that pirating games is a benefit to the developer because "exposure".
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  Your analogy is extremely specious. A better analogy is an unheard of band playing an open mic night. The audience is doing the band a favor, by giving attention, possibly giving word of mouth reviews, not the other way around. The audience has every right to give feedback and help the band understand they don’t sound good. The band can ignore that feedback if they want, but they sure have no justification to look down on the audience for saying it, or saying, “play your own music if you don’t like it.” Giving my attention to your FOSS project is compensation. In fact, FOSS is so over-saturated with options that giving my attention is high compensation. Project maintainers are lucky to have an audience of users and should value their feedback and create solutions for them, if they want the attention to continue or they want compensation to increase. What doesn’t make sense is to treat users like they don’t matter, ignore critical bug fixes or feature requests to prioritize dabbling or recreational features, and disingenuously turn around and claim users are rude or should be shadow banned for stating justified frustration over this, all under the false pretense that just because the compensation is in the form of attention and engagement (similar to currying “likes” or “votes” on social media), and not currency, this somehow means there is zero social contract between maintainers and users. If users are kind enough to express frustration in bug reports or feature requests, it means they are making an extra effort to hopefully not have to leave your project and stop using it. It’s an attempt at a constructive solution by letting the maintainer know there’s a social obligation problem happening. That seems way, way more positive and reasonable than a disgruntled maintainer immediately shrugging it off and going straight for the nuclear option of, “well if you don’t like it, leave.”
smokey_circles 6y ago
People are people and whether they are maintainer or customer, we can all be ass-hats. How would you prefer that kind of "arbitrary planning" be addressed though? I don't have any luck with my FOSS projects but I am SUPER grateful for that because I just don't have the time to sit and work on them after I've done the job I have to pay the bills I also have. Any advice for someone like me?
- ganafagol 6y ago
  My advice: if you like the project you are working on, great! Keep working on it and maybe users will come along. Or they may not, but it does not really matter cause you like it anyway right? If you do not like working on it, stop doing it. No matter users or not. That's the 1 line summary of doing volunteer work.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    In my experience this is usually a recipe for unhappiness, similar to choosing a college major by “following your passion.” If you want to enjoy working on FOSS, choose to solve a problem that lots of users need solved, the more mundane the better, then make your whole backlog focused on what the user tells you. FOSS needs product / market (of attention) fit like anything else. Unless you are your own user for a real use case, you need other real users to be the sole driver.
    - ganafagol 6y ago
      The analogy with a college major is not a good fit. College education needs to provide you with a job later that puts food on the table. Not every moment of that is fun, hopefully many moments are though. But the only reward with volunteer work in FOSS is the fun you get out of it. That's your compensation. So if you don't like what you are doing, stop doing it. Don't try to mainly please others, unless that's what gives you pleasure.
- imtringued 6y ago
  I don't have time to spend on my FOSS projects and I don't care about user growth. If I use the project myself and my friends are deriving lots of value then that's more than enough.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
I agree wholeheartedly with this post. If you are just some person who wrote some code and made it open in case anyone else finds it useful, that's totally cool and I can respect that. If your goals are to attract a lot of users and you're out there pushing for people to use your product, don't be surprised when they tell you what their problems with it are. You've already signaled you want them as a user, and by ignoring them you're signaling that you don't want to put any work in for it.

jhasse 6y ago

> not being directly compensated entitles any arbitrary planning policy. It does though IMHO.

nextlevelwizard 6y ago

You present no argument at all. FOSS is FOSS. Creator or current maintainer owes you and other users exactly nothing. They are putting their stuff up for you to use if you see value in it. You can report bugs and make feature requests, but no one is under any obligation to even read your bug reports or feature requests. If you want your specific thing fixed right now then do it yourself.

jodrellblank 6y ago
Grandparent comment is “I maintain a very popular piece of FOSS software as my full time job”; FOSS means libre not necessarily gratis, it could still be paid for, with paying customers or employer-users in this case and owe them a lot.
- ganafagol 6y ago
  That's correct, but misses the point. If you are paid for FOSS work then whoever pays you can expect you to do certain things. But that's the "get paid" part, not the "FOSS" part. It would be the same with paid work on proprietary software.
  - jodrellblank 6y ago
    Yes it would be the same with paid work on proprietary software, which is why the comment I was replying to "FOSS is FOSS. Creator or current maintainer owes you and other users exactly nothing." is a non-sequitur, it doesn't hold up. Whether you have the source code and rights to redistribute it is orthogonal to whether the creator or current owner has a contract with you and "owes" you anything. Having access to the source doesn't automatically mean the owner/maintainer owes you nothing. I think the comment is promoting only the "FOSS == gratis" side of getting things for free ($0) and not considering the original "FOSS == insight and rights, even if paid for" side of things.
    - nextlevelwizard 6y ago
      Even if you pay for piece of software that does not entitle you any say on the direction the software is going or priority on your bug reports or feature requests. There can be explicit contract where you are funding specific feature, but just donating to a project does not entitle you to anything. You can stop using the software if it does not provide you any use. That is the only thing you are entitled to.
      - jodrellblank 6y ago
        I never said "payment ENTITLES you to support", I said having access to the source does NOT mean NO entitlement to support, one does not control the other either way because access to the source and paid support contracts are separate things. > "there can be explicit contract where you are funding specific feature" Yes, I said as much when I said you can have a contract for support and also have FOSS software. Here, you are downvoting me and agreeing with me. There can be a explicit contract where you have the source source and also are entitled to some development that you're paying for. > "You can stop using the software if it does not provide you any use. That is the only thing you are entitled to." NO, here you are changing your mind again and narrowing it back down to "it was free so you have no rights". You cannot make the judgement that because someone has open source software, they didn't pay for it, and you cannot make the judgement that if they have open source software, they are not entitled to anything. The three are DIFFERENT things. The original point of FOSS was to avoid vendor lockin, not to get free downloads from Github. In case it isn't extremely clear, downloading a free and foss tool from Github does not entitle you to feature requests or support. Donating to it does not either. Saying "every FOSS user has no entitlement to support or feature requests because the code is FOSS" is incorrect, and a bad idea for the programming/tech industry to be spreading, partly because a lot of developers would benefit from spreading the idea of paid FOSS because they want to work on it and get paid, and partly because users would benefit from the increase in paying for software and also getting the source as part of that, including whatever entitlement to support paying would have got them normally.
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
Sure, but that doesn’t mean I have to view it as an acceptable choice if a maintainer leverages a large user base for notoriety and then fails to prioritize that user base’s needs. They can do that, and I can express frustration that it’s an unacceptably poor failure if they do, in more ways than just declining to use their software.
- The_Colonel 6y ago
  I think there's a big assumption that maintainer does the work to gain notoriety. Many of them (myself included) do it completely anonymously. Many others have a traceable identity but still they may be motivated by other things.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    If it appears on a resume, it’s done for notoriety. If it’s fully anonymous and never appears on a resume, then I concede you are right in that case, but I think that’s an extreme minority of cases among the types of projects the thread is discussing.
    - The_Colonel 6y ago
      > If it appears on a resume, it’s done for notoriety. There might be such people, but I doubt such projects would be very successful or notorious. Being able to put something on CV does not provide that long lasting gratification needed to develop/maintain software in the long run. If it's about your CV only, then there are probably more effective ways to achieve better returns. (In my case I don't put my F/OSS on my CV and I don't think I'm "extreme minority")
      - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        As a hiring manager, a large fraction (easily greater than 50%) of resumes that I see do list OSS projects and contributions as accomplishments and technical experience. Maybe I just see an unusual slice of the OSS maintainer world, but it’s very common.

katbyte 6y ago

If you have issues with how a project is being run fork it and do it yourself

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
Or, politely object, raise issues & frustrations and lobby the maintainers to make different choices.

TheDong 6y ago

Your comment misunderstands the point of some most software. Yes, some open source software (like Red Hat Enterprise Linux) is run by a company and has an expectation of support. The vast majority of free software, from the GNU tools like gcc to the linux kernel to clang, does not have that expectation. All free software has a license that lets you fork it (by definition)... and that's where your reasonable expectations should end. If you think the maintainer isn't doing a good job working on the right issues or maintaining the project, that's not the maintainer's problem. That's your problem. If you have the abilities to fork it and implement those changes yourself (realizing the maintainer does not have to incorporate those changes of course), go for it. If you can't, well, your expectations are totally wrong. If a maintainer actively looks for "fame" or actively pushes more people to use their software, that does not mean they have to provide support. That does not mean they have to live up to some standard you've made up in your head. They should make a reasonable attempt to uphold any specific promises they make, but that's about all they owe people, and if they promise to build a feature, then burn out, that's okay too really.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
> “ If you think the maintainer isn't doing a good job working on the right issues or maintaining the project, that's not the maintainer's problem. That's your problem.” This is backwards. The maintainer is expecting attention and users. By alerting the maintainer to issues, I would be helping them (using my own extra effort, eg bug reports, feature requests). The nuclear option for a user is to just throw their hands up, not even try to lobby the maintainer to make better choices, and quit using the project. The nuclear option for a maintainer is to completely ignore the user base whose attention they need and whose efforts on bug reports or whose frustrations give them free labor to understand their projects fault points and fix them, and instead say, “you’re not paying me with money, only with attention, time and effort, so I owe you nothing” (as if owing was any part of any of it) and ignore their feedback. Either side can go for the nuclear option. But wouldn’t we hope the social contract in FOSS has a higher standard and people try to both give and receive reasonable feedback, and people try, at least, to consider users’ needs after users have invested attention, word of mouth review, effort on bug reports, etc. before “going nuclear” and gainsaying everything with “you don’t pay me in the form of currency so I owe you nothing.”

cycomanic 6y ago

So according to your argument the users are compensating the FOSS maintainers by using the software? That's an interesting concept of compensation, does this apply in other domains, e.g. if I go to a soup kitchen which donates free food is my eating that food compensation? I'm really trying to understand this argument.

rodgerd 6y ago
It's analagous to the brain-rotting line of thinking that pirating games is a benefit to the developer because "exposure".
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
Your analogy is extremely specious. A better analogy is an unheard of band playing an open mic night. The audience is doing the band a favor, by giving attention, possibly giving word of mouth reviews, not the other way around. The audience has every right to give feedback and help the band understand they don’t sound good. The band can ignore that feedback if they want, but they sure have no justification to look down on the audience for saying it, or saying, “play your own music if you don’t like it.” Giving my attention to your FOSS project is compensation. In fact, FOSS is so over-saturated with options that giving my attention is high compensation. Project maintainers are lucky to have an audience of users and should value their feedback and create solutions for them, if they want the attention to continue or they want compensation to increase. What doesn’t make sense is to treat users like they don’t matter, ignore critical bug fixes or feature requests to prioritize dabbling or recreational features, and disingenuously turn around and claim users are rude or should be shadow banned for stating justified frustration over this, all under the false pretense that just because the compensation is in the form of attention and engagement (similar to currying “likes” or “votes” on social media), and not currency, this somehow means there is zero social contract between maintainers and users. If users are kind enough to express frustration in bug reports or feature requests, it means they are making an extra effort to hopefully not have to leave your project and stop using it. It’s an attempt at a constructive solution by letting the maintainer know there’s a social obligation problem happening. That seems way, way more positive and reasonable than a disgruntled maintainer immediately shrugging it off and going straight for the nuclear option of, “well if you don’t like it, leave.”

smokey_circles 6y ago

People are people and whether they are maintainer or customer, we can all be ass-hats. How would you prefer that kind of "arbitrary planning" be addressed though? I don't have any luck with my FOSS projects but I am SUPER grateful for that because I just don't have the time to sit and work on them after I've done the job I have to pay the bills I also have. Any advice for someone like me?

ganafagol 6y ago
My advice: if you like the project you are working on, great! Keep working on it and maybe users will come along. Or they may not, but it does not really matter cause you like it anyway right? If you do not like working on it, stop doing it. No matter users or not. That's the 1 line summary of doing volunteer work.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  In my experience this is usually a recipe for unhappiness, similar to choosing a college major by “following your passion.” If you want to enjoy working on FOSS, choose to solve a problem that lots of users need solved, the more mundane the better, then make your whole backlog focused on what the user tells you. FOSS needs product / market (of attention) fit like anything else. Unless you are your own user for a real use case, you need other real users to be the sole driver.
  - ganafagol 6y ago
    The analogy with a college major is not a good fit. College education needs to provide you with a job later that puts food on the table. Not every moment of that is fun, hopefully many moments are though. But the only reward with volunteer work in FOSS is the fun you get out of it. That's your compensation. So if you don't like what you are doing, stop doing it. Don't try to mainly please others, unless that's what gives you pleasure.
imtringued 6y ago
I don't have time to spend on my FOSS projects and I don't care about user growth. If I use the project myself and my friends are deriving lots of value then that's more than enough.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

I agree wholeheartedly with this post. If you are just some person who wrote some code and made it open in case anyone else finds it useful, that's totally cool and I can respect that. If your goals are to attract a lot of users and you're out there pushing for people to use your product, don't be surprised when they tell you what their problems with it are. You've already signaled you want them as a user, and by ignoring them you're signaling that you don't want to put any work in for it.