6 ms·

I respectfully disagree with the take that Bounties damages Open Source Projefts, which I also respectfully communicated to the Zig leadership team. After my c

I respectfully disagree with the take that Bounties damages Open Source Projefts, which I also respectfully communicated to the Zig leadership team. After my communication they banned me from participating in their community (I quote from them "You're not welcome anymore on our GH repo nor any other community managed directly by us."). For those interested, we moved the sponsorship work to the Wasmer repo, so those who want to work on it can do it freely. https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer/issues/4218 https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer/issues/4218

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ismailadi 3y ago
Sorry, but in my opinion you are in the wrong here. You can't just offer money and rush people for something to get merged in another open source project without even previously discussing it if the authors of that project want it in the first place. Just my 2 cents.
- syrusakbary 3y ago
  It was not required for the PR to be merged upstream for the bounty to be awarded. This was explicitly stated in a comment in the original issue that for some reason the Zig leadership decided to remove
  - ismailadi 3y ago
    (you've deleted your previous comment that I replied to) But then why did you open an issue in the Zig repo and even marked it as "Bug", while in your repo you added the "Enhancement" label? Just admit that you've communicated it poorly and move on.
    - syrusakbary 3y ago
      Have you tried creating issues on the Zig repo? External contributors can’t select the labels of an issue. New issues get automatically tagged. In the Wasmer repo we can obviously choose the proper label just because we have the permission to do so
dartos 3y ago
Well… besides your zig drama… why do you disagree?
hypfer 3y ago
[flagged]
- richbell 3y ago
  > You could also like.. just respect the maintainers of zig instead of doubling down on this abusive behavior, y'know? What about their behavior is abusive?
  - hypfer 3y ago
    This person is a third-party who runs a company that does X. In an effort to push X and in turn their company and their personal financial gain, they decided to go to the issue tracker of an open-source project, demanding that X should be implemented because it's important to do so. It was never an "Hey, I have this thing and maybe it would be a good fit for Zig". Instead it was an "This needs to be done." But that's just regular foss nonsense. Where this turned into something different is when the person - only 15 minutes after creating that feature request labelled as a bug - started a $5000 bounty for people to implement X. The maintainers never agreed to having X in the first place. They were never even consulted, given that the author didn't ask if X could be implemented. There was never a question. It was an attempted hostile takeover of the direction of the project. But the worst part of it is that this person wasn't even going to do the maintainer-harrassing all by themself. No, they're a smart one. They know that if they trow out a bounty of $5000, a lot of naive and unsuspecting useful idiots will jump in and apply pressure to the zig maintainers for them. Tbh I think it's quite clever to perform such an amplification attack to force your way into a project. It would probably also be just business as usual in a business context with different commercial entities competing with each other. But as always, people don't understand that foss projects usually do not take part in that rat race and therefore never consented to playing games with morally questionable tactics like these.
kyrra 3y ago
Any more background here about position on this matter is right compared to the zig maintainers?
tener 3y ago
The contributors are expected to follow code of conduct: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/blob/master/.github/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md#our-standards https://github.com/ziglang/zig/blob/master/.github/CODE_OF_C... At least these lines sounds reasonable: Examples of behavior that contribute to creating a positive environment include: - Using welcoming and inclusive language. - Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences. - Gracefully accepting constructive criticism. - Helping another person accomplish their own goals. - Showing empathy towards others. - Showing appreciation for others' work. - Validating someone else's experience, skills, insight, and use cases. A pity the leadership doesn't appear to hold themselves to the same standard. I didn't have anything but a passing interest in Zig before, but this is a huge red flag about the project.
- bdzr 3y ago
  The deleting of half the comments is what's really irritating IMO. Go ahead and lock the thread, ban people if you don't want bounty discussion, but leave the history intact.
  - syrusakbary 3y ago
    Agreed
swsieber 3y ago
> also to anyone reading this. DONT POST any code to Zig issue tracker. post it to your own repo, and link to it if need be. any code you post to the tracker becomes MIT license, which I learned the hard way. Any insight on this? How can this possibly be true?
- mnahkies 3y ago
  Is this surprising? I haven't checked the zig license, but if it's MIT I'd expect any code contributed to the repository to be MIT by extension
- arp242 3y ago
  Meh, weird accusation from a known bad-faith troll with a history of misrepresenting facts (i.e. lying) to make weird accusations and more sockpuppets on the internet than I have socks. My guess it's probably something minor, like copying a few lines of trivial code or the like, at most. (Not involved or affiliated with Zig at all, just observed this person's behaviour over a period of many years).
  - richbell 3y ago
    > Meh, weird accusation from a known bad-faith troll with a history of misrepresenting facts (i.e. lying) to make weird accusations and more sockpuppets on the internet than I have socks. That's a rather large accusation to throw around. What's the context behind this?
    - arp242 3y ago
      To be honest I kind of regret my previous comment as I don't really want to bring up heaps of drama here, and also I can't be bothered to go looking for all sorts of links (constantly having GitHub accounts banned means its actually quite hard to do that unless you keep links around, which I don't; they always have the same profile picture so it's easy to spot). OTOH, it's also some important context I guess... But to give one example out of several, at one point they strategically edited and deleted some comments on a small repo of mine (from before GitHub showed you the edit history) when I announced my (completely unrelated) full-time open-source project, to make me seem an asshole to try and get "revenge" for their perceived slight of denying a pseudo feature request ("pseudo" because they were spamming the same kind of feature request to hundreds, if not thousands, of repos). I've seen this type of thing a few time with this person: an accusation that makes you go "oh wow!" and then you look in to things and it turns out it's either a spectacular exaggeration or outright misrepresentation (i.e. lying). Maybe they're right this time, but I can't even be bothered to look in to it any more.
laserbeam 3y ago
I agree with the ban. You proposed a change to a repo you do not own. You offered an incentive to 3rd party developers to push PRs to that repo. You did not wait until the proposal was accepted. You thus required the community maintaining that repo to do extra review work on a feature they hadn't officially accepted yet. You were refused, and then offered the same incentives somewhere else, with the same drawbacks on the zig community. Even in your new offer it's unclear whether people should make changes in zig (add support for your features in zig) or in wasmer (change the samples to work with the current zig compiler, or build libraries that work with zig) to support your features. There's a time and place to offer incentives for someone else's project, but that shouldn't happen without their approval.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
  - ismailadi 3y ago
    But then why did you open an issue in the Zig repo and even marked it as "Bug", while in your repo you added the "Enhancement" label? Just admit that you've communicated it poorly and move on.
- syrusakbary 3y ago
  This comment might be insightful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37545637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37545637 EDIT: added extra context > You proposed a change to a repo you do not own That’s not accurate, your assumption would imply that the bounty would require the work to be merged upstream or reviewed by the Zig team, which was not. The bounty just required to have a working prototype. We explicitly stated that merging upstream was not required > Even in your new offer it's unclear whether people should make changes in zig (add support for your features in zig) or in wasmer (change the samples to work with the current zig compiler, or build libraries that work with zig) to support your features That's a fair critique, I'll update the issue to make sure this is clear
- guilhas 3y ago
  Don't understand the problem, can't the PRs just be ignored forever or closed? No one can do any work unless the leadership green light seems a bit restrictive
slimsag 3y ago
I'm glad your communication with them in the aftermath was respectful. Good that came out of your behavior, though: I learned that the Bytecode Alliance is just really bad at communicating historically, but has been trying to improve that and actually has been pushing forward WASI preview 2 quite aggressively, making a ton of progress on it. Someone linked me this roadmap video[0] in which they say: * WASI Preview 2 ships by the end of the year and is largely usable now * Two people are working on WASM threads * VMWare has been working on Garbage Collection in wasmtools, and is working on getting that running in wasmtime * Components are isolation units for threads, memory space, etc. It means a WASM module can use components without being aware of threads. Components are named, versioned, etc. * They're considering resource and handle types (I assume for e.g. externalized file handles) * Once WASM GC moves forward, it will also go into components. * WASI sockets, WASI HTTP, clock, filesystem, RNG are all in scope for WASI preview 2 around Fall. * wasmtime and a JS web implementation are in scope, so two implementations of all this. Sounds quite promising compared to what was happening in the past! Now I wonder why WASIX is a thing instead of pushing forward with WASI given they've been changing for the better? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl_O95zOJbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl_O95zOJbs

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ismailadi 3y ago

Sorry, but in my opinion you are in the wrong here. You can't just offer money and rush people for something to get merged in another open source project without even previously discussing it if the authors of that project want it in the first place. Just my 2 cents.

syrusakbary 3y ago
It was not required for the PR to be merged upstream for the bounty to be awarded. This was explicitly stated in a comment in the original issue that for some reason the Zig leadership decided to remove
- ismailadi 3y ago
  (you've deleted your previous comment that I replied to) But then why did you open an issue in the Zig repo and even marked it as "Bug", while in your repo you added the "Enhancement" label? Just admit that you've communicated it poorly and move on.
  - syrusakbary 3y ago
    Have you tried creating issues on the Zig repo? External contributors can’t select the labels of an issue. New issues get automatically tagged. In the Wasmer repo we can obviously choose the proper label just because we have the permission to do so

dartos 3y ago

Well… besides your zig drama… why do you disagree?

hypfer 3y ago

[flagged]

richbell 3y ago
> You could also like.. just respect the maintainers of zig instead of doubling down on this abusive behavior, y'know? What about their behavior is abusive?
- hypfer 3y ago
  This person is a third-party who runs a company that does X. In an effort to push X and in turn their company and their personal financial gain, they decided to go to the issue tracker of an open-source project, demanding that X should be implemented because it's important to do so. It was never an "Hey, I have this thing and maybe it would be a good fit for Zig". Instead it was an "This needs to be done." But that's just regular foss nonsense. Where this turned into something different is when the person - only 15 minutes after creating that feature request labelled as a bug - started a $5000 bounty for people to implement X. The maintainers never agreed to having X in the first place. They were never even consulted, given that the author didn't ask if X could be implemented. There was never a question. It was an attempted hostile takeover of the direction of the project. But the worst part of it is that this person wasn't even going to do the maintainer-harrassing all by themself. No, they're a smart one. They know that if they trow out a bounty of $5000, a lot of naive and unsuspecting useful idiots will jump in and apply pressure to the zig maintainers for them. Tbh I think it's quite clever to perform such an amplification attack to force your way into a project. It would probably also be just business as usual in a business context with different commercial entities competing with each other. But as always, people don't understand that foss projects usually do not take part in that rat race and therefore never consented to playing games with morally questionable tactics like these.

kyrra 3y ago

Any more background here about position on this matter is right compared to the zig maintainers?

tener 3y ago

The contributors are expected to follow code of conduct: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/blob/master/.github/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md#our-standards https://github.com/ziglang/zig/blob/master/.github/CODE_OF_C... At least these lines sounds reasonable: Examples of behavior that contribute to creating a positive environment include: - Using welcoming and inclusive language. - Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences. - Gracefully accepting constructive criticism. - Helping another person accomplish their own goals. - Showing empathy towards others. - Showing appreciation for others' work. - Validating someone else's experience, skills, insight, and use cases. A pity the leadership doesn't appear to hold themselves to the same standard. I didn't have anything but a passing interest in Zig before, but this is a huge red flag about the project.

bdzr 3y ago
The deleting of half the comments is what's really irritating IMO. Go ahead and lock the thread, ban people if you don't want bounty discussion, but leave the history intact.
- syrusakbary 3y ago
  Agreed

swsieber 3y ago

> also to anyone reading this. DONT POST any code to Zig issue tracker. post it to your own repo, and link to it if need be. any code you post to the tracker becomes MIT license, which I learned the hard way. Any insight on this? How can this possibly be true?

mnahkies 3y ago
Is this surprising? I haven't checked the zig license, but if it's MIT I'd expect any code contributed to the repository to be MIT by extension
arp242 3y ago
Meh, weird accusation from a known bad-faith troll with a history of misrepresenting facts (i.e. lying) to make weird accusations and more sockpuppets on the internet than I have socks. My guess it's probably something minor, like copying a few lines of trivial code or the like, at most. (Not involved or affiliated with Zig at all, just observed this person's behaviour over a period of many years).
- richbell 3y ago
  > Meh, weird accusation from a known bad-faith troll with a history of misrepresenting facts (i.e. lying) to make weird accusations and more sockpuppets on the internet than I have socks. That's a rather large accusation to throw around. What's the context behind this?
  - arp242 3y ago
    To be honest I kind of regret my previous comment as I don't really want to bring up heaps of drama here, and also I can't be bothered to go looking for all sorts of links (constantly having GitHub accounts banned means its actually quite hard to do that unless you keep links around, which I don't; they always have the same profile picture so it's easy to spot). OTOH, it's also some important context I guess... But to give one example out of several, at one point they strategically edited and deleted some comments on a small repo of mine (from before GitHub showed you the edit history) when I announced my (completely unrelated) full-time open-source project, to make me seem an asshole to try and get "revenge" for their perceived slight of denying a pseudo feature request ("pseudo" because they were spamming the same kind of feature request to hundreds, if not thousands, of repos). I've seen this type of thing a few time with this person: an accusation that makes you go "oh wow!" and then you look in to things and it turns out it's either a spectacular exaggeration or outright misrepresentation (i.e. lying). Maybe they're right this time, but I can't even be bothered to look in to it any more.

laserbeam 3y ago

I agree with the ban. You proposed a change to a repo you do not own. You offered an incentive to 3rd party developers to push PRs to that repo. You did not wait until the proposal was accepted. You thus required the community maintaining that repo to do extra review work on a feature they hadn't officially accepted yet. You were refused, and then offered the same incentives somewhere else, with the same drawbacks on the zig community. Even in your new offer it's unclear whether people should make changes in zig (add support for your features in zig) or in wasmer (change the samples to work with the current zig compiler, or build libraries that work with zig) to support your features. There's a time and place to offer incentives for someone else's project, but that shouldn't happen without their approval.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- ismailadi 3y ago
  But then why did you open an issue in the Zig repo and even marked it as "Bug", while in your repo you added the "Enhancement" label? Just admit that you've communicated it poorly and move on.
syrusakbary 3y ago
This comment might be insightful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37545637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37545637 EDIT: added extra context > You proposed a change to a repo you do not own That’s not accurate, your assumption would imply that the bounty would require the work to be merged upstream or reviewed by the Zig team, which was not. The bounty just required to have a working prototype. We explicitly stated that merging upstream was not required > Even in your new offer it's unclear whether people should make changes in zig (add support for your features in zig) or in wasmer (change the samples to work with the current zig compiler, or build libraries that work with zig) to support your features That's a fair critique, I'll update the issue to make sure this is clear
guilhas 3y ago
Don't understand the problem, can't the PRs just be ignored forever or closed? No one can do any work unless the leadership green light seems a bit restrictive

slimsag 3y ago

I'm glad your communication with them in the aftermath was respectful. Good that came out of your behavior, though: I learned that the Bytecode Alliance is just really bad at communicating historically, but has been trying to improve that and actually has been pushing forward WASI preview 2 quite aggressively, making a ton of progress on it. Someone linked me this roadmap video[0] in which they say: * WASI Preview 2 ships by the end of the year and is largely usable now * Two people are working on WASM threads * VMWare has been working on Garbage Collection in wasmtools, and is working on getting that running in wasmtime * Components are isolation units for threads, memory space, etc. It means a WASM module can use components without being aware of threads. Components are named, versioned, etc. * They're considering resource and handle types (I assume for e.g. externalized file handles) * Once WASM GC moves forward, it will also go into components. * WASI sockets, WASI HTTP, clock, filesystem, RNG are all in scope for WASI preview 2 around Fall. * wasmtime and a JS web implementation are in scope, so two implementations of all this. Sounds quite promising compared to what was happening in the past! Now I wonder why WASIX is a thing instead of pushing forward with WASI given they've been changing for the better? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl_O95zOJbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl_O95zOJbs