> 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 hav

> 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.