5 ms·

I really liked an article on the subject of sustainability in open source by Dave Rupert. See https://daverupert.com/2021/12/sustaining-maintaining/ https://dav

I really liked an article on the subject of sustainability in open source by Dave Rupert. See https://daverupert.com/2021/12/sustaining-maintaining/ https://daverupert.com/2021/12/sustaining-maintaining/ One of the of the points Rupert drives home is that open source with the goal of sustainability doesn’t have a framework in place that doesn’t lead to burnout. Everyone just learns lessons the hard way without any real manual for successful outcomes.

ozim 5y ago
Why there should be sustainability built in? Not everyone should be publishing their code and definitely not everyone should be OSS maintainer. From what I see and how I look at things, people think it "fun" or "cool" and don't understand full picture of what it really is to be OSS maintainer. I also don't think that simply more OSS is better - while yes, corporations should share more, software written with taxpayers money should be open - but randoms from around the globe should keep their leftpads for themselves and their friends.
- janfoeh 5y ago
  I wholeheartedly disagree with your underlying premise of what open source is or should be. It's not a job. It's not a résumé. It's not a damn lifestyle or an in-group to define yourself through. It's a way of saying "I wrote this. I allow you to look at it and use it for yourself, if you like". Nothing more, nothing less. > randoms from around the globe should keep their leftpads for themselves and their friends. That seems like a bizarre inversion of responsibility to me. Randoms can publish whatever they please; if you use their left-pad, that's on you and you alone.
  - ozim 5y ago
    If it is not a job then why people are getting burned out, why people nag about not getting compensated?
- canyonero 5y ago
  > Why there should be sustainability built in? I don't think it should be built in by default to any software that is released open-source. But, I do think having guidelines for how software can be developed in such a way that doesn't lead to burnout. The linked article pertains to avoiding the path to burnout, which if you are sharing code that an author a.) expects to "own" and maintain and b.) hopes other people will use, then you need should educate yourself as to how this can be achieved. Good literature on the subject is limited IMO. > Not everyone should be publishing their code and definitely not everyone should be OSS maintainer. I partially agree with this. I do think not everyone is up for the task of OSS maintenance and development, some of which is likely stemming because they don't have a good framework for how to do so sustainably. I do think anyone should be able to freely publish their code if they like. Sometimes folks want to share things for fun or education or demonstration purposes, when they don't intend to accept or want PRs or contributions or downstream consumption or maintain it. There is value in OSS for many different reasons. I think GitHub in particular does a poor job of signaling to readers which software is sustainable and which is not.
  - ozim 5y ago
    > I do think anyone should be able to freely publish their code if they like. Sometimes folks want to share things for fun or education or demonstration purposes... I do agree that anyone should be able to publish, but then should also consider bigger picture when "stars", "likes", "downloads" are rolling in. As noted there are no materials that show what is it like when you have to work on something for years because you built expectations in others. Just like kids want to be youtubers and then youtubers were all "burned out" because yt algorithm will take away their likes if they are not on top of the things all the time.

ozim 5y ago

Why there should be sustainability built in? Not everyone should be publishing their code and definitely not everyone should be OSS maintainer. From what I see and how I look at things, people think it "fun" or "cool" and don't understand full picture of what it really is to be OSS maintainer. I also don't think that simply more OSS is better - while yes, corporations should share more, software written with taxpayers money should be open - but randoms from around the globe should keep their leftpads for themselves and their friends.

janfoeh 5y ago
I wholeheartedly disagree with your underlying premise of what open source is or should be. It's not a job. It's not a résumé. It's not a damn lifestyle or an in-group to define yourself through. It's a way of saying "I wrote this. I allow you to look at it and use it for yourself, if you like". Nothing more, nothing less. > randoms from around the globe should keep their leftpads for themselves and their friends. That seems like a bizarre inversion of responsibility to me. Randoms can publish whatever they please; if you use their left-pad, that's on you and you alone.
- ozim 5y ago
  If it is not a job then why people are getting burned out, why people nag about not getting compensated?
canyonero 5y ago
> Why there should be sustainability built in? I don't think it should be built in by default to any software that is released open-source. But, I do think having guidelines for how software can be developed in such a way that doesn't lead to burnout. The linked article pertains to avoiding the path to burnout, which if you are sharing code that an author a.) expects to "own" and maintain and b.) hopes other people will use, then you need should educate yourself as to how this can be achieved. Good literature on the subject is limited IMO. > Not everyone should be publishing their code and definitely not everyone should be OSS maintainer. I partially agree with this. I do think not everyone is up for the task of OSS maintenance and development, some of which is likely stemming because they don't have a good framework for how to do so sustainably. I do think anyone should be able to freely publish their code if they like. Sometimes folks want to share things for fun or education or demonstration purposes, when they don't intend to accept or want PRs or contributions or downstream consumption or maintain it. There is value in OSS for many different reasons. I think GitHub in particular does a poor job of signaling to readers which software is sustainable and which is not.
- ozim 5y ago
  > I do think anyone should be able to freely publish their code if they like. Sometimes folks want to share things for fun or education or demonstration purposes... I do agree that anyone should be able to publish, but then should also consider bigger picture when "stars", "likes", "downloads" are rolling in. As noted there are no materials that show what is it like when you have to work on something for years because you built expectations in others. Just like kids want to be youtubers and then youtubers were all "burned out" because yt algorithm will take away their likes if they are not on top of the things all the time.