7 ms·

How does it get to this stage where someone has to write up a hostile post to get across this point? Have the maintainers been too nice/polite and/or accommodat

by oxplot 4y ago

How does it get to this stage where someone has to write up a hostile post to get across this point? Have the maintainers been too nice/polite and/or accommodating and now resent it in face of requests they can't fulfill (and the backlash it may have caused)? I'm genuinely puzzled as to why bluntly refusing a feature, contribution, etc they didn't like hasn't worked for them. It's worked just fine for my limited experience in maintaining FOSS projects. Perhaps there is a scale aspect that I'm missing here.

davedx 4y ago
I’ve said it before: “entitlement” goes both ways. Treating users of your software like the enemy is no way to behave, whether it’s open source or not. If you don’t like your users - maybe it’s time to take a break from software development?
- capableweb 4y ago
  Based on this post, you get the impression that Hickey think Clojure users are his enemies? I didn't get that impression at all, and I also know that Hickey sees Clojure users as friends, receives feedback from many in the community, and Clojure is open to community contributions, although differently than many other projects are run.
  - b3morales 4y ago
    Perhaps not Clojure, but there are other projects where this is an issue. Users are treated as a burden: the regular response to a bug or request is "well why don't you do it yourself then". I don't really want to start a flame war so I won't name names, but I have seen it. Though I'll say it is thankfully rare.
wildmanx 4y ago
It's a typical pattern that I've seen in FOSS projects over the last decades. Somebody writes something cool, publishes it, is initially happy about adoption and positive feedback, and then people start to demand more and more of them. Fix this thing, add that thing, here is my code, when are you finally going to merge it, why are you not responding, you are not respectful of me, etc. etc. Then a mix of burnout and resentment happens and the more bold ones issue such a statement. Others just abandon their project and are never seen again. It's very sad, and it's rooted in a basic misconception of what FOSS actually is. That's why such posts are important to educate people, even if it sounds drastic.
- oxplot 4y ago
  > It's a typical pattern that I've seen in FOSS You'd think that people working on FOSS are aware of this pattern and watch out for it. But seemingly not!
  - mpyne 4y ago
    Is there any reason that you think being aware of the pattern is enough to solve it, or feel no consequences from it? I think people are aware of the pattern (it's not hard to notice) but that doesn't solve the issues it creates.
    - CuriousSkeptic 4y ago
      There may be another thing at play too. Many projects are presented as being useful: “I built this great thing, you should use it!” Open Source or not, this gets to be a promise people will be held accountable for. If instead a project is described as “I built this thing for me. Here’s the source. Please don't trust me, or my code, with anything valuable” expectations can be better aligned perhaps. There can of course be middle grounds. “I wrote this useful code. If you need me to be your project manager for it, here’s how you can pay for that privilege”
      - wildmanx 4y ago
        > If instead a project is described as “I built this thing for me. Here’s the source. Please don't trust me, or my code, with anything valuable” expectations can be better aligned perhaps. Every open source project states this explicitly. In the license. Usually in all caps. Wanna see? MIT license has: --- THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. --- See? "No warranty of any kind." I.e. "don't trust this with anything valuable". How can this be more explicit? GPL: --- 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. --- See? "The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the program is with you". How can this be more explicit? Nowhere does it state that the author is obliged to provide support, reply to issue reports, accept merge requests, or is even nice to anybody. It's great if they are, and I appreciate such projects as well, but nobody is entitled to that. So please don't assume it or berate people if you encounter the opposite. This builds false expectations in others who don't know any better. We need to help each other out to build proper understanding within the community.
capableweb 4y ago
Not sure which "hostile post" you are referring to, as I don't think the submitted article is hostile at all. It's just very clear in what the author is trying to get across. But anyway, this is how we got to the point of Hickey writing this post: - Heavy Clojure User received bunch of feedback from friends and colleagues asking why something hasn't been fixed yet in Clojure core - Heavy Clojure User sees that bunch of stuff hasn't been fixed, so they take it on themselves to fix these issues and submit patches - The workflow of "Submit patch -> Have Hickey review it and deny it -> Make changes -> Wait for Hickey again -> etc etc" was too slow for the Heavy Clojure User - So Heavy Clojure User made their post describing "How to contribute to Clojure", blaming the core team for not working tightly enough with the community and spending enough time reviewing/accepting patches - Hickey publishes this post titled "Open Source is Not About You" not entirely aimed at "Heavy Clojure User" but the community at large, while still being a reaction to that post by Heavy Clojure User - Heavy Clojure User apologizes for the initial post, for tying Clojure with their own identity and explains a period of self-reflection has begun.
- chris_wot 4y ago
  Sometimes directness comes across as hostility. Telling someone they aren't entitled to something can come across as hostile, even though it isn't and is merely the truth.
- oxplot 4y ago
  > as I don't think the submitted article is hostile at all Tone is lost in text and I don't have much background. If I was thinking of contributing to Clojure, this post is reason enough to stay away from it. Based on your explanation, I think Hickey should have simply ignored the user's post and let that be the end of it. I mentioned "blunt" response to individual contributions. That is quite different to a blanket statement with a "we don't owe you s... - f... off if you don't like it" vibe.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    The blanket statement is correct, though. It may not be couched in a palatable way, but only in that it doesn't spend lots of words on how lovely everyone is and how few people it is addressing. It just says what's true and leaves it at that. If you'd rather not work in that environment then that's reasonable, but I think it's a little refreshing compared to what I normally read from big OSS projects.
sidlls 4y ago
I disagree with a good part of the substance of the article. Publishing open source software incurs a self-imposed obligation to do much of what Mr. Hickey says nobody is entitled to, in my opinion. If you don't want that responsibility, don't publish.
- wtetzner 4y ago
  I don’t see how. The license explicitly says otherwise.

by oxplot 4y ago

davedx 4y ago

I’ve said it before: “entitlement” goes both ways. Treating users of your software like the enemy is no way to behave, whether it’s open source or not. If you don’t like your users - maybe it’s time to take a break from software development?

capableweb 4y ago
Based on this post, you get the impression that Hickey think Clojure users are his enemies? I didn't get that impression at all, and I also know that Hickey sees Clojure users as friends, receives feedback from many in the community, and Clojure is open to community contributions, although differently than many other projects are run.
- b3morales 4y ago
  Perhaps not Clojure, but there are other projects where this is an issue. Users are treated as a burden: the regular response to a bug or request is "well why don't you do it yourself then". I don't really want to start a flame war so I won't name names, but I have seen it. Though I'll say it is thankfully rare.

wildmanx 4y ago

It's a typical pattern that I've seen in FOSS projects over the last decades. Somebody writes something cool, publishes it, is initially happy about adoption and positive feedback, and then people start to demand more and more of them. Fix this thing, add that thing, here is my code, when are you finally going to merge it, why are you not responding, you are not respectful of me, etc. etc. Then a mix of burnout and resentment happens and the more bold ones issue such a statement. Others just abandon their project and are never seen again. It's very sad, and it's rooted in a basic misconception of what FOSS actually is. That's why such posts are important to educate people, even if it sounds drastic.

oxplot 4y ago
> It's a typical pattern that I've seen in FOSS You'd think that people working on FOSS are aware of this pattern and watch out for it. But seemingly not!
- mpyne 4y ago
  Is there any reason that you think being aware of the pattern is enough to solve it, or feel no consequences from it? I think people are aware of the pattern (it's not hard to notice) but that doesn't solve the issues it creates.
  - CuriousSkeptic 4y ago
    There may be another thing at play too. Many projects are presented as being useful: “I built this great thing, you should use it!” Open Source or not, this gets to be a promise people will be held accountable for. If instead a project is described as “I built this thing for me. Here’s the source. Please don't trust me, or my code, with anything valuable” expectations can be better aligned perhaps. There can of course be middle grounds. “I wrote this useful code. If you need me to be your project manager for it, here’s how you can pay for that privilege”
    - wildmanx 4y ago
      > If instead a project is described as “I built this thing for me. Here’s the source. Please don't trust me, or my code, with anything valuable” expectations can be better aligned perhaps. Every open source project states this explicitly. In the license. Usually in all caps. Wanna see? MIT license has: --- THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. --- See? "No warranty of any kind." I.e. "don't trust this with anything valuable". How can this be more explicit? GPL: --- 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. --- See? "The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the program is with you". How can this be more explicit? Nowhere does it state that the author is obliged to provide support, reply to issue reports, accept merge requests, or is even nice to anybody. It's great if they are, and I appreciate such projects as well, but nobody is entitled to that. So please don't assume it or berate people if you encounter the opposite. This builds false expectations in others who don't know any better. We need to help each other out to build proper understanding within the community.

capableweb 4y ago

Not sure which "hostile post" you are referring to, as I don't think the submitted article is hostile at all. It's just very clear in what the author is trying to get across. But anyway, this is how we got to the point of Hickey writing this post: - Heavy Clojure User received bunch of feedback from friends and colleagues asking why something hasn't been fixed yet in Clojure core - Heavy Clojure User sees that bunch of stuff hasn't been fixed, so they take it on themselves to fix these issues and submit patches - The workflow of "Submit patch -> Have Hickey review it and deny it -> Make changes -> Wait for Hickey again -> etc etc" was too slow for the Heavy Clojure User - So Heavy Clojure User made their post describing "How to contribute to Clojure", blaming the core team for not working tightly enough with the community and spending enough time reviewing/accepting patches - Hickey publishes this post titled "Open Source is Not About You" not entirely aimed at "Heavy Clojure User" but the community at large, while still being a reaction to that post by Heavy Clojure User - Heavy Clojure User apologizes for the initial post, for tying Clojure with their own identity and explains a period of self-reflection has begun.

chris_wot 4y ago
Sometimes directness comes across as hostility. Telling someone they aren't entitled to something can come across as hostile, even though it isn't and is merely the truth.
oxplot 4y ago
> as I don't think the submitted article is hostile at all Tone is lost in text and I don't have much background. If I was thinking of contributing to Clojure, this post is reason enough to stay away from it. Based on your explanation, I think Hickey should have simply ignored the user's post and let that be the end of it. I mentioned "blunt" response to individual contributions. That is quite different to a blanket statement with a "we don't owe you s... - f... off if you don't like it" vibe.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  The blanket statement is correct, though. It may not be couched in a palatable way, but only in that it doesn't spend lots of words on how lovely everyone is and how few people it is addressing. It just says what's true and leaves it at that. If you'd rather not work in that environment then that's reasonable, but I think it's a little refreshing compared to what I normally read from big OSS projects.

sidlls 4y ago

I disagree with a good part of the substance of the article. Publishing open source software incurs a self-imposed obligation to do much of what Mr. Hickey says nobody is entitled to, in my opinion. If you don't want that responsibility, don't publish.

wtetzner 4y ago
I don’t see how. The license explicitly says otherwise.