4 ms·

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

by 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"
        bmitc 3y ago
        > Authors of open source software owe you nothing, including the work of communication. This is a tiring discussion, because this is exactly what I'm talking about. No one is here talking about how anyone owes one anything. In fact, no one in any part of life owes one anything if you'd like to go that route. But effective communication and expectation setting avoids the vast amount of communication issues. If a maintainer wants to release software and then complain about it every step of the way and claim everyone is demanding how they spend their time and effort and not reading their mind and now bowing at their feet, that's their prerogative. But that isn't some righteous path. It's an annoying one. If maintainers are such sensitive souls, then they should either: communicate early and stop complaining, or take the project private or disable issues and stop complaining. Why almost go out of your way just to complain and make your job harder?
        pydry 3y ago
        >No one is here talking about how anyone owes one anything. You were. You were describing what you "expect" from maintainers. That is the same thing as saying what you are owed. E.g. when I make a contract I expect the other side to honor it. I am owed that because they signed a contract. I expect people to not spit on me on the street - that's part of an unspoken societal contract. If somebody makes a commitment, I expect them to follow through on it (even if they are not legally bound to) - again, part of an unspoken societal contract. If I email somebody, I don't expect a response under all circumstances - again, unspoken societal contract. What you were describing above were additional expectations you have on people who gave you something for free in exchange for nothing.
  - pydry 3y ago
    Just ask if you want to raise a PR. Explain what you want to do. Or fuck off. It's as simple as that. You're not owed an explanation just because somebody gave you something for free. The maintainer might have complicated reasons for wanting to accept some PRs and not others and might not want to put the work in to write it down. They're not obligated to explain this to the all and sundry just in case somebody wants to raise a drive by PR. If you think they are obligated, that's indicative of a culture of entitlement.
Ferret7446 3y ago
As someone who has received PRs, simply reading the PR is a demand. Hell, getting a notification about the PR is a demand. Reading the message is a demand. Reading the code is a demand. Thinking about whether the approach is satisfactory is a demand. Thinking of a response is a demand. If you want to maximize your chances, you had better put as much effort into making things as easy for the maintainer as possible, such as including alternate approaches you considered and why they were not chosen, written as succinctly yet clearly as possible. Your code should completely match the existing style and formatting of the code; your own style preferences are irrelevant. Of course, you need to be as polite as possible without being condescending. And even then, you are owed nothing. That is the approach I take when writing my PRs, and my success rate is rather high (but I still get rejected or ignored).

by bmitc 3y ago

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"
      - bmitc 3y ago
        > Authors of open source software owe you nothing, including the work of communication. This is a tiring discussion, because this is exactly what I'm talking about. No one is here talking about how anyone owes one anything. In fact, no one in any part of life owes one anything if you'd like to go that route. But effective communication and expectation setting avoids the vast amount of communication issues. If a maintainer wants to release software and then complain about it every step of the way and claim everyone is demanding how they spend their time and effort and not reading their mind and now bowing at their feet, that's their prerogative. But that isn't some righteous path. It's an annoying one. If maintainers are such sensitive souls, then they should either: communicate early and stop complaining, or take the project private or disable issues and stop complaining. Why almost go out of your way just to complain and make your job harder?
        pydry 3y ago
        >No one is here talking about how anyone owes one anything. You were. You were describing what you "expect" from maintainers. That is the same thing as saying what you are owed. E.g. when I make a contract I expect the other side to honor it. I am owed that because they signed a contract. I expect people to not spit on me on the street - that's part of an unspoken societal contract. If somebody makes a commitment, I expect them to follow through on it (even if they are not legally bound to) - again, part of an unspoken societal contract. If I email somebody, I don't expect a response under all circumstances - again, unspoken societal contract. What you were describing above were additional expectations you have on people who gave you something for free in exchange for nothing.
- pydry 3y ago
  Just ask if you want to raise a PR. Explain what you want to do. Or fuck off. It's as simple as that. You're not owed an explanation just because somebody gave you something for free. The maintainer might have complicated reasons for wanting to accept some PRs and not others and might not want to put the work in to write it down. They're not obligated to explain this to the all and sundry just in case somebody wants to raise a drive by PR. If you think they are obligated, that's indicative of a culture of entitlement.

Ferret7446 3y ago

As someone who has received PRs, simply reading the PR is a demand. Hell, getting a notification about the PR is a demand. Reading the message is a demand. Reading the code is a demand. Thinking about whether the approach is satisfactory is a demand. Thinking of a response is a demand. If you want to maximize your chances, you had better put as much effort into making things as easy for the maintainer as possible, such as including alternate approaches you considered and why they were not chosen, written as succinctly yet clearly as possible. Your code should completely match the existing style and formatting of the code; your own style preferences are irrelevant. Of course, you need to be as polite as possible without being condescending. And even then, you are owed nothing. That is the approach I take when writing my PRs, and my success rate is rather high (but I still get rejected or ignored).