5 ms·

> After the funds were moved we were invited to become admins of the Faker collective. This meant that we retained the existing sponsors of the Faker collective

by ognarb 5y ago

> After the funds were moved we were invited to become admins of the Faker collective. This meant that we retained the existing sponsors of the Faker collective who were paying for the continued maintenance of the project. I'm sorry but this feels wrong. The existing sponsors should have their subscriptions cancelled, instead of going to a new organization automatically.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
Only sponsorships tied to the project itself will continue to be tied to the project. This move was sponsored by the co-maintainers of the project. Any sponsorships tied to marak's personal GitHub account were not changed, of course. This is also consistent with the original terms: > During the conversation with Ben, he went over the terms and conditions of the Open Collective with me. > Ben said that simply, "The funding is attached to the project, not the current maintainer." Full details: https://github.com/faker-js/faker/discussions/56#discussioncomment-1958057 https://github.com/faker-js/faker/discussions/56#discussionc...
- young_unixer 5y ago
  > Only sponsorships tied to the project itself will continue to be tied to the project Yeah, but the project is not actually the same anymore. The new project taking over the name and URL of the old project doesn't make it "the same" project.
  - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    > The new project taking over the name and URL of the old project doesn't make it "the same" project. Do you really think the sponsors and the people using this code actually care that one person (of many contributors to the project) who wanted to break the project is no longer part of the project? It's a technicality, but in practice nobody actually cares. If they wanted to sponsor Marak they would have done it through his Github sponsorships. If they wanted to sponsor Fakerjs, in whatever form it takes, they would choose the Open Collective and their associated terms that allow for exactly this scenario.
    - kekkidy 5y ago
    - young_unixer 5y ago
      > Do you really think the sponsors and the people using this code actually care that one person (of many contributors to the project) who wanted to break the project is no longer part of the project? Some of them probably do. And some probably don't like the way in which the takeover was done, or don't like the new guys, even if they don't really like what the old guy did either.
    - epolanski 5y ago
      Ok, but the question is, what entitles these people, rather than other to claim a fork as "community successor"?
      - Aeolun 5y ago
        Good preparation? The fact that this site is at the top of HN? I don’t think anyone really cares as long as the community settles on only one. Personally I’m happy a group (and only one group) of people has stepped up to take over stewardship.
      - butlerm 5y ago
        Nothing. People vote with their feet or their checkbooks.
xwdv 5y ago
Ask for forgiveness not permission.
sergiomattei 5y ago
No they shouldn’t, they supported the project - not the crazed author.
lkapl 5y ago

by ognarb 5y ago

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

Only sponsorships tied to the project itself will continue to be tied to the project. This move was sponsored by the co-maintainers of the project. Any sponsorships tied to marak's personal GitHub account were not changed, of course. This is also consistent with the original terms: > During the conversation with Ben, he went over the terms and conditions of the Open Collective with me. > Ben said that simply, "The funding is attached to the project, not the current maintainer." Full details: https://github.com/faker-js/faker/discussions/56#discussioncomment-1958057 https://github.com/faker-js/faker/discussions/56#discussionc...

young_unixer 5y ago
> Only sponsorships tied to the project itself will continue to be tied to the project Yeah, but the project is not actually the same anymore. The new project taking over the name and URL of the old project doesn't make it "the same" project.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > The new project taking over the name and URL of the old project doesn't make it "the same" project. Do you really think the sponsors and the people using this code actually care that one person (of many contributors to the project) who wanted to break the project is no longer part of the project? It's a technicality, but in practice nobody actually cares. If they wanted to sponsor Marak they would have done it through his Github sponsorships. If they wanted to sponsor Fakerjs, in whatever form it takes, they would choose the Open Collective and their associated terms that allow for exactly this scenario.
  - kekkidy 5y ago
  - young_unixer 5y ago
    > Do you really think the sponsors and the people using this code actually care that one person (of many contributors to the project) who wanted to break the project is no longer part of the project? Some of them probably do. And some probably don't like the way in which the takeover was done, or don't like the new guys, even if they don't really like what the old guy did either.
  - epolanski 5y ago
    Ok, but the question is, what entitles these people, rather than other to claim a fork as "community successor"?
    - Aeolun 5y ago
      Good preparation? The fact that this site is at the top of HN? I don’t think anyone really cares as long as the community settles on only one. Personally I’m happy a group (and only one group) of people has stepped up to take over stewardship.
    - butlerm 5y ago
      Nothing. People vote with their feet or their checkbooks.

xwdv 5y ago

Ask for forgiveness not permission.

sergiomattei 5y ago

No they shouldn’t, they supported the project - not the crazed author.

lkapl 5y ago