3 ms·
Define "most" people.... To me, this is like the left-pad incident and npm. There was a vocal minority who denounced npm for looking after the greater good, ma
by fault1 5y ago
Define "most" people....
To me, this is like the left-pad incident and npm. There was a vocal minority who denounced npm for looking after the greater good, maintaining continuity and transferring the project to someone else.
In this case, since the author also deleted the project, the proper way to maintain continuity for the sponsors seems to transfer it to the new community of folks who are interested in maintaining the project. Sponsoring the old deleted project does nobody any good.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with what OC did.
- mbreese 5y agoYou have to let the supporters make that decision. You can make that decision easy, you can automate a lot of it, you can inform, but you can’t change which project the funding is going to without explicit consent. And yes, for these purposes, the new fork should be considered a new project. It is a completely different situation than if the project itself decided to change maintainers, etc. This is really a crazy situation where the original maintainer blows up the project. The best scenario would be for the original authors to hand over the project in some capacity. But that seems pretty unlikely. To put it in different terms… this was not a SQL UPDATE. The was a DELETE. You don’t just change foreign keys to a different project_id when you delete a record. I would also argue that the author was completely irresponsible, and made life difficult for everyone that used and supported the project. But that’s a separate issue and doesn’t make what the open collective decided right.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]