5 ms·

>show a fundamental issue with the open core model The alternative is the code doesnt exist. >Usually, you expect that developers When developers give away s

by pydry 3y ago

>show a fundamental issue with the open core model The alternative is the code doesnt exist. >Usually, you expect that developers When developers give away software for free I have no expections of them. If they fix a bug I consider that a favor not an obligation on their part. There is a culture of entitlement surrounding open source which drives "expectations" from people who give stuff away for free and it's maddening.

kuschku 3y ago
The only one giving stuff away for free is the author of the PR. And yet, you're calling that person entitled.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  The core project is given away for free, often with MIT or similar license. Thus allowing competition to build their own enterprise fork, possibly based on rejected community PRs of enterprise features.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- prabhatsharma 3y ago
  Author of the pr gave stuff for free. He showed no signs of entitlement. But he is not there only one who gave stuff for free. The open source project gave code for free that is 100 times bigger than the pr. Not acknowledging that is a problem.
  - sethops1 3y ago
    The author of the PR expected it to be merged. That is entitlement. They could have discussed the feature with the maintainers beforehand but AFAICT they did not.
    - 1000100_1000101 3y ago
      AFAICT, the maintainer is the one lacking communication skills. Perhaps the author commented something to the effect of 'you could have told me this before I wasted my time' in the deleted comments towards the end. Or perhaps they were profanity laden. Perhaps a mix of both. We'll never know for sure. What we do know, is the maintainer chose to ignore any communication related to this PR, for months, until someone pointed out it was helpful keeping the PR open, as it allowed people to apply it themselves locally. Then, all of a sudden, the PR is closed, and communication finally occurs. Could be coincidence, but that's doubtful considering the time span and specific comment involved.
      - pydry 3y ago
        >What we do know, is the maintainer chose to ignore any communication related to this PR, for months Which is entirely their prerogative. All they did was build something and give it away for free. As I said, it's a culture of entitlement that drives people to think that anyone's PR should be looked at is owed.
- travem 3y ago
  They are obviously not the only one, developers worked on the original code and made it available under the MIT license. The author of the PR has the right to make the change and run it on their own system, they are also free to share that change to others. The project is free to reject that change for whatever reason.
bmitc 3y ago
I personally think it's up to maintainers to set expectations. Many times maintainers will use open source projects on their resumes, advertise them on forums, give presentations, and then will be antagonistic towards even very friendly and objective issues and PRs. Even something as simple as "I built this for my own needs and have open sourced it for open knowledge and will only fix issues that further my own needs and will not accept anything but simple PRs" goes a long way.
- pydry 3y ago
  No. It's up to contributors to set expectations about the work they do with the project maintainer before they do it if they have any wish to see it merged. You were given something for free. That doesnt confer any rights, legal, moral or otherwise. Drive by pull requests are not always welcome for any number of reasons which are the sole prerogative of the project maintainers who owe you nothing. PRs are even worse when theyre big. If you do a large PR without informing anyone you should expect by default for it to be ignored.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    There are burdens on both sides and communication on both sides is important. I have had even the most simple reports receive antagonistic responses as if I was demanding (I wasn't) free work from the maintainers. That's unacceptable communication in my view. Any such communication will eliminate any willingness of mine that I had to help contribute. > You were given something for free. I wasn't given anything. Something was released into the open to be interacted with at some level. If a maintainer wants to complain about any interaction whatsoever, then take it private or disable issues, write a contributing (or non-contributing) guideline, and reject PRs professionally. > That doesnt confer any rights, legal, moral or otherwise. That's completely obvious. But like I said, a simple PR or issue filing does not imply a demand of the maintainer by the reporter or contributor. So you're basically showcasing what I'm saying isn't great, in that maintainers have this bias already set in their mind that any communication to them is a demand of their time and effort and a claim of rights, which it's very often not.
apantel 3y ago
It’s like free vs paid tiers of anything: you don’t put all the features in the free tier.

by pydry 3y ago

kuschku 3y ago

The only one giving stuff away for free is the author of the PR. And yet, you're calling that person entitled.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
The core project is given away for free, often with MIT or similar license. Thus allowing competition to build their own enterprise fork, possibly based on rejected community PRs of enterprise features.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
prabhatsharma 3y ago
Author of the pr gave stuff for free. He showed no signs of entitlement. But he is not there only one who gave stuff for free. The open source project gave code for free that is 100 times bigger than the pr. Not acknowledging that is a problem.
- sethops1 3y ago
  The author of the PR expected it to be merged. That is entitlement. They could have discussed the feature with the maintainers beforehand but AFAICT they did not.
  - 1000100_1000101 3y ago
    AFAICT, the maintainer is the one lacking communication skills. Perhaps the author commented something to the effect of 'you could have told me this before I wasted my time' in the deleted comments towards the end. Or perhaps they were profanity laden. Perhaps a mix of both. We'll never know for sure. What we do know, is the maintainer chose to ignore any communication related to this PR, for months, until someone pointed out it was helpful keeping the PR open, as it allowed people to apply it themselves locally. Then, all of a sudden, the PR is closed, and communication finally occurs. Could be coincidence, but that's doubtful considering the time span and specific comment involved.
    - pydry 3y ago
      >What we do know, is the maintainer chose to ignore any communication related to this PR, for months Which is entirely their prerogative. All they did was build something and give it away for free. As I said, it's a culture of entitlement that drives people to think that anyone's PR should be looked at is owed.
travem 3y ago
They are obviously not the only one, developers worked on the original code and made it available under the MIT license. The author of the PR has the right to make the change and run it on their own system, they are also free to share that change to others. The project is free to reject that change for whatever reason.

bmitc 3y ago

I personally think it's up to maintainers to set expectations. Many times maintainers will use open source projects on their resumes, advertise them on forums, give presentations, and then will be antagonistic towards even very friendly and objective issues and PRs. Even something as simple as "I built this for my own needs and have open sourced it for open knowledge and will only fix issues that further my own needs and will not accept anything but simple PRs" goes a long way.

pydry 3y ago
No. It's up to contributors to set expectations about the work they do with the project maintainer before they do it if they have any wish to see it merged. You were given something for free. That doesnt confer any rights, legal, moral or otherwise. Drive by pull requests are not always welcome for any number of reasons which are the sole prerogative of the project maintainers who owe you nothing. PRs are even worse when theyre big. If you do a large PR without informing anyone you should expect by default for it to be ignored.
- bmitc 3y ago
  There are burdens on both sides and communication on both sides is important. I have had even the most simple reports receive antagonistic responses as if I was demanding (I wasn't) free work from the maintainers. That's unacceptable communication in my view. Any such communication will eliminate any willingness of mine that I had to help contribute. > You were given something for free. I wasn't given anything. Something was released into the open to be interacted with at some level. If a maintainer wants to complain about any interaction whatsoever, then take it private or disable issues, write a contributing (or non-contributing) guideline, and reject PRs professionally. > That doesnt confer any rights, legal, moral or otherwise. That's completely obvious. But like I said, a simple PR or issue filing does not imply a demand of the maintainer by the reporter or contributor. So you're basically showcasing what I'm saying isn't great, in that maintainers have this bias already set in their mind that any communication to them is a demand of their time and effort and a claim of rights, which it's very often not.

apantel 3y ago

It’s like free vs paid tiers of anything: you don’t put all the features in the free tier.