3 ms·

This might be an unpopular take, and I'm aware of how it sounds, but why don't you stop maintaining those projects if you can't do it properly? You are not req

by remram 5y ago

This might be an unpopular take, and I'm aware of how it sounds, but why don't you stop maintaining those projects if you can't do it properly? You are not required to do this. It doesn't even mean you have to stop making new things, you can just not take on that role as a focus point of each of their respective communities. As a user of a library, I don't hold it against their author when I find a piece of software that is abandoned. I will create my own fork and start maintaining it if I have too, or understand the state that it's in. I will find alternative avenues to discuss issues if the GitHub issue tracker is closed. Just don't make yourself the center of a community if you are going to unleash a stalebot trashing other people's genuine issues. You are making it impossible for someone to fork. because they would be competing with the author; people might even find it distasteful. So everyone is forced to go through you, leading to both suboptimal software governance and burnout on your part. You are not getting paid, why force yourself?

gnubison 5y ago
> why don't you stop maintaining those projects if you can't do it properly? Well, perhaps they are doing it properly, and everyone else has the wrong definition of “proper”. Good stewardship does not mean accepting every patch and every new feature.
- remram 5y ago
  By "improperly" I don't mean a disagreement on the project's direction; apologies if that wasn't clear. I mean using things like stalebot, shutting down discussions and increasing the demand on other people's time in your community just because you personally don't have the time to keep up. If you have reviewed a patch and you don't think it's the way to go, or you don't think it can be maintained going forward, that's fine. If you set up stalebot to close and lock merge requests because you don't have time to review, that's something else.

by remram 5y ago

gnubison 5y ago

> why don't you stop maintaining those projects if you can't do it properly? Well, perhaps they are doing it properly, and everyone else has the wrong definition of “proper”. Good stewardship does not mean accepting every patch and every new feature.

remram 5y ago
By "improperly" I don't mean a disagreement on the project's direction; apologies if that wasn't clear. I mean using things like stalebot, shutting down discussions and increasing the demand on other people's time in your community just because you personally don't have the time to keep up. If you have reviewed a patch and you don't think it's the way to go, or you don't think it can be maintained going forward, that's fine. If you set up stalebot to close and lock merge requests because you don't have time to review, that's something else.