5 ms·

You get both the demanding users and the giving users, but the point is, the demanding users don't actually cost your open source repo anything. When it's a we

You get both the demanding users and the giving users, but the point is, the demanding users don't actually cost your open source repo anything. When it's a website, every user is money out of your pocket.

rapind 5y ago
Demanding users of OSS at a minimum will cost you time. At worst they can also cost you reputation. At best they can help you improve your project. I think in most cases the entitlement many (most?) users have makes it a net negative these days. At least for popular projects. I think the easiest solution is to charge for support. No issue reports or PRs unless you’re also a paying user.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > I think the easiest solution is to charge for support. No issue reports or PRs unless you’re also a paying user. Agree 100%. Your time and effort isn't free. Users who want some of it should have to provide value in exchange.
- MaxBarraclough 5y ago
  > No issue reports or PRs unless you’re also a paying user. You'd turn down quality bug-reports and code-contributions in the name of blocking spam? I doubt I'm the only one who would take strong objection to the idea of pay me so that you can work on my project. Open Source software development can be made to scale to the level of the Linux kernel. I don't buy the idea that its principles need to be thrown out in the name of anti-spam practicalities.
  - rapind 5y ago
    > You'd turn down quality bug-reports and code-contributions in the name of blocking spam? Absolutely I’d “risk” it. Even a negligible amount like $10, would reduce the noise significantly. I’d also pay that in a heartbeat as a user. > I don't buy the idea that its principles need to be thrown out in the name of anti-spam practicalities. What “principles” are you referring to?
    - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
      > What “principles” are you referring to? Those of Open Source software development: > The users are treated like co-developers and so they should have access to the source code of the software. Furthermore, users are encouraged to submit additions to the software, code fixes for the software, bug reports, documentation, etc. [0] Introducing a paywall to keep out those who wish to submit improvements to a project, is the antithesis of encouragement. > I’d also pay that in a heartbeat as a user. Not every Open Source contributor has money to give. A better alternative might be for a forge website (GitHub or whomever) to implement a user-scoring system. Wikipedia uses this approach quite successfully, where only users with a certain level of 'credibility' are permitted to make changes to semi-protected articles. StackExchange/StackOverflow does something similar to avoid spam on 'highly active questions'. Even HackerNews does something like this, showing usernames in green for new accounts. What the forge would actually do with the user-score, I'm not certain. It would be difficult to do anything without making the forge less welcoming to newcomers. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Development_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Developme...
      - rapind 5y ago
        I don't agree that this is a "principle". Having free access to the source is IMO the only principle. As stated in the wikipedia article, the rest is just a "suggestion". I think there's plenty of room to evolve while maintaining the core principle of actually being open source. There already exists a lot of OSS that does NOT grant low investment contribution, and that's not always a bad thing. The point, as I see it, is to raise the investment / friction required to contribute. You are less likely to pollute a project with inane comments if you're invested (not guaranteed, just less likely). I wouldn't recommend this for any / all OSS, but instead when you start getting tons of low value contributions. In fact you'll see a lot of issues on large OSS projects that I wouldn't even categorize as "contributions", but more like complaining or simply asking questions that are often already clearly documented. E.g. "Doesn't work! Fix please!" We're seeing a lot of OSS projects simply close down their issue reporting because they don't want to deal with it. If there was an easy way to enforce investment / quality of feedback I think some of these project would probably keep their issue reporting open. User scoring could potentially work too. It would be an interesting experiment. I think there's a lot of room to try things. For example, you could complement a paid model with an application process to gain free access (for those who can't afford it) as both would require user investment (money OR time). You mentioned Linux as an example. They have a detailed process for reporting issues. You can't just one-line tweet an issue and expect it to receive attention. https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/reporting-issues.html#step-by-step-guide-how-to-report-issues-to-the-kernel-maintainers https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/reporting-issues.html#st...
jandrewrogers 5y ago
Demanding users absolutely do cost something -- time and attention at a minimum. Some users will go to great lengths to try to force you to engage with them. An open source repo does not prevent this either in theory or practice.
- aetherson 5y ago
  They actually don't. You can just ignore them. I get that people find them unpleasant. But "finding somebody unpleasant" is different from "someone costs you money."
  - compiler-guy 5y ago
    Love to see your email filter that separates messages from helpful users from demanding users. If you can't automate this step, you have to read the insults, and pleading, and jerk-faced comments from the demanding users. Which takes time and energy.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
      > Love to see your email filter that separates messages from helpful users from demanding users. Go one step further and make it a product. OP'll be a millionaire in no time.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - notyourday 5y ago
      It is called "Pay me" button.
      - compiler-guy 5y ago
        That's a response to a complainer, not a filter to prevent them from taking your time and energy figuring out if it is worth responding.

rapind 5y ago

Demanding users of OSS at a minimum will cost you time. At worst they can also cost you reputation. At best they can help you improve your project. I think in most cases the entitlement many (most?) users have makes it a net negative these days. At least for popular projects. I think the easiest solution is to charge for support. No issue reports or PRs unless you’re also a paying user.

pdonis 5y ago
> I think the easiest solution is to charge for support. No issue reports or PRs unless you’re also a paying user. Agree 100%. Your time and effort isn't free. Users who want some of it should have to provide value in exchange.
MaxBarraclough 5y ago
> No issue reports or PRs unless you’re also a paying user. You'd turn down quality bug-reports and code-contributions in the name of blocking spam? I doubt I'm the only one who would take strong objection to the idea of pay me so that you can work on my project. Open Source software development can be made to scale to the level of the Linux kernel. I don't buy the idea that its principles need to be thrown out in the name of anti-spam practicalities.
- rapind 5y ago
  > You'd turn down quality bug-reports and code-contributions in the name of blocking spam? Absolutely I’d “risk” it. Even a negligible amount like $10, would reduce the noise significantly. I’d also pay that in a heartbeat as a user. > I don't buy the idea that its principles need to be thrown out in the name of anti-spam practicalities. What “principles” are you referring to?
  - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
    > What “principles” are you referring to? Those of Open Source software development: > The users are treated like co-developers and so they should have access to the source code of the software. Furthermore, users are encouraged to submit additions to the software, code fixes for the software, bug reports, documentation, etc. [0] Introducing a paywall to keep out those who wish to submit improvements to a project, is the antithesis of encouragement. > I’d also pay that in a heartbeat as a user. Not every Open Source contributor has money to give. A better alternative might be for a forge website (GitHub or whomever) to implement a user-scoring system. Wikipedia uses this approach quite successfully, where only users with a certain level of 'credibility' are permitted to make changes to semi-protected articles. StackExchange/StackOverflow does something similar to avoid spam on 'highly active questions'. Even HackerNews does something like this, showing usernames in green for new accounts. What the forge would actually do with the user-score, I'm not certain. It would be difficult to do anything without making the forge less welcoming to newcomers. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Development_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Developme...
    - rapind 5y ago
      I don't agree that this is a "principle". Having free access to the source is IMO the only principle. As stated in the wikipedia article, the rest is just a "suggestion". I think there's plenty of room to evolve while maintaining the core principle of actually being open source. There already exists a lot of OSS that does NOT grant low investment contribution, and that's not always a bad thing. The point, as I see it, is to raise the investment / friction required to contribute. You are less likely to pollute a project with inane comments if you're invested (not guaranteed, just less likely). I wouldn't recommend this for any / all OSS, but instead when you start getting tons of low value contributions. In fact you'll see a lot of issues on large OSS projects that I wouldn't even categorize as "contributions", but more like complaining or simply asking questions that are often already clearly documented. E.g. "Doesn't work! Fix please!" We're seeing a lot of OSS projects simply close down their issue reporting because they don't want to deal with it. If there was an easy way to enforce investment / quality of feedback I think some of these project would probably keep their issue reporting open. User scoring could potentially work too. It would be an interesting experiment. I think there's a lot of room to try things. For example, you could complement a paid model with an application process to gain free access (for those who can't afford it) as both would require user investment (money OR time). You mentioned Linux as an example. They have a detailed process for reporting issues. You can't just one-line tweet an issue and expect it to receive attention. https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/reporting-issues.html#step-by-step-guide-how-to-report-issues-to-the-kernel-maintainers https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/reporting-issues.html#st...

jandrewrogers 5y ago

Demanding users absolutely do cost something -- time and attention at a minimum. Some users will go to great lengths to try to force you to engage with them. An open source repo does not prevent this either in theory or practice.

aetherson 5y ago
They actually don't. You can just ignore them. I get that people find them unpleasant. But "finding somebody unpleasant" is different from "someone costs you money."
- compiler-guy 5y ago
  Love to see your email filter that separates messages from helpful users from demanding users. If you can't automate this step, you have to read the insults, and pleading, and jerk-faced comments from the demanding users. Which takes time and energy.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
    > Love to see your email filter that separates messages from helpful users from demanding users. Go one step further and make it a product. OP'll be a millionaire in no time.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - notyourday 5y ago
    It is called "Pay me" button.
    - compiler-guy 5y ago
      That's a response to a complainer, not a filter to prevent them from taking your time and energy figuring out if it is worth responding.