6 ms·

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,

by 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.
  - pulvinar 3y ago
    From the maintainer's point of view, any new contribution requires work to vet it and check that it won't break something else, insidiously inject malware, etc., so what value it adds has to appear to be worth the trouble. Even when the contributor is certain that their PR is perfect and should be "no trouble" for the maintainer. This "hill" that has to be gotten over by the contributor is just a reality of the situation. I don't see any way around it.
    - bmitc 3y ago
      Just document it on the README: PRs are will not be accepted or vetted due to <x>. It's as simple as that.
      - growse 3y ago
        That's a very absolutist view. In reality, some PRs are good quality and worth paying the ongoing cost to maintain. Others are good quality, but not worth the ongoing cost. Maintainers get to decide, and they're not obligated to publish their evaluation criteria.
        bmitc 3y ago
        > and they're not obligated to publish their evaluation criteria God forbid people communicate.
        Ferret7446 3y ago
        Communication requires work from both side. Authors of open source software owe you nothing, including the work of communication. At a baseline, you are responsible for the maintainer's communication burden too, such as reading in between the lines and accommodating for their schedule (they may need weeks to respond). If you don't think it's a burden, then why not fork the project and become the maintainer yourself? "Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes"
relativ575 3y ago
> 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. Is it different than someone advertising their FAANG's credentials?
- bmitc 3y ago
  To me, it just sets an implicit expectation of "this is something I support and maintain for my and others' uses" unless otherwise stated.
  - xbar 3y ago
    > There is a culture of entitlement surrounding open source which drives "expectations" from people who give stuff away for free and it's maddening.
    - bmitc 3y ago
      Again, expecting a product to be supported unless otherwise stated is not entitlement. Expecting support is not the same as demanding or even expecting people to work for free or at all. What it does mean is that issues and PRs are treated professionally and without antagonistic behavior. Once again, if you feel every contributor is entitled, don't open source your project or disable issues and make it very clear issues and contributions are not welcome.
      - pydry 3y ago
        >Again, expecting a product to be supported unless otherwise stated is not entitlement. It 100% is entitlement, and open source is not a "product" because you don't pay for it. The developers of open source owe you nothing.
        bmitc 3y ago
        > The developers of open source owe you nothing. For the umpteenth time in this discussion, no one said they did. And please note what I implicitly defined as supported, which is basically that a non-antagonistic conversation can be had about issues and contributions. That is not entitlement.
Ferret7446 3y ago
The license already sets expectations: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND

by bmitc 3y ago

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.
- pulvinar 3y ago
  From the maintainer's point of view, any new contribution requires work to vet it and check that it won't break something else, insidiously inject malware, etc., so what value it adds has to appear to be worth the trouble. Even when the contributor is certain that their PR is perfect and should be "no trouble" for the maintainer. This "hill" that has to be gotten over by the contributor is just a reality of the situation. I don't see any way around it.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    Just document it on the README: PRs are will not be accepted or vetted due to <x>. It's as simple as that.
    - growse 3y ago
      That's a very absolutist view. In reality, some PRs are good quality and worth paying the ongoing cost to maintain. Others are good quality, but not worth the ongoing cost. Maintainers get to decide, and they're not obligated to publish their evaluation criteria.
      - bmitc 3y ago
        > and they're not obligated to publish their evaluation criteria God forbid people communicate.
        Ferret7446 3y ago
        Communication requires work from both side. Authors of open source software owe you nothing, including the work of communication. At a baseline, you are responsible for the maintainer's communication burden too, such as reading in between the lines and accommodating for their schedule (they may need weeks to respond). If you don't think it's a burden, then why not fork the project and become the maintainer yourself? "Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes"

relativ575 3y ago

> 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. Is it different than someone advertising their FAANG's credentials?

bmitc 3y ago
To me, it just sets an implicit expectation of "this is something I support and maintain for my and others' uses" unless otherwise stated.
- xbar 3y ago
  > There is a culture of entitlement surrounding open source which drives "expectations" from people who give stuff away for free and it's maddening.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    Again, expecting a product to be supported unless otherwise stated is not entitlement. Expecting support is not the same as demanding or even expecting people to work for free or at all. What it does mean is that issues and PRs are treated professionally and without antagonistic behavior. Once again, if you feel every contributor is entitled, don't open source your project or disable issues and make it very clear issues and contributions are not welcome.
    - pydry 3y ago
      >Again, expecting a product to be supported unless otherwise stated is not entitlement. It 100% is entitlement, and open source is not a "product" because you don't pay for it. The developers of open source owe you nothing.
      - bmitc 3y ago
        > The developers of open source owe you nothing. For the umpteenth time in this discussion, no one said they did. And please note what I implicitly defined as supported, which is basically that a non-antagonistic conversation can be had about issues and contributions. That is not entitlement.

Ferret7446 3y ago

The license already sets expectations: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND