4 ms·

World Driven: Dynamic code ownership

2 points by rando77 2y ago

thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
You are welcome to run your projects this way, but other people can choose how they want to run their projects. Rich Hickey's "Open Source is Not About You" offers some opinions from the creator of several large, successful projects: https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba9519972d9 https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba95...
- rando77 2y ago
  Not my project I just posted it because it was an interesting model. If like to see if integrating something like gitpay, which allows you to put bounties on issues could be included in giving people weight in something like world driven. I'm interested in models of open source that are more sustainable
  - thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
    I agree with you on those ideas. Sustainability is a huge issue and bounties could help. I think a lot of Rich Hickey's complaints were due to stress from dealing with entitled community members with little support from individuals and corporate users. People can be relentless in their demands and project maintainers and contributers only have so much time and energy. Paying them could help somewhat in terms of motivation and resources. This new model is interesting, but seems a bit like "magical thinking" project management born from frustration about how some open source maintainers run their projects. It assumes that all pull requests are worth pulling, thus "time-based auto merges". It assumes that anyone who wants to should be able to contribute should be able to. While that sounds good superficially, in can lead to situations like the xz utils backdoor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor).
    - rando77 2y ago
      If there are active maintainers they can just close PRs that aren't worth pulling. It's true that it makes malicious takeover easier. If personally liked something that allowed vetos from downstream projects. As they have skin in the game on what gets merged. I wasn't thinking about the time based auto merging when I came across this project. I don't know how much project orphaning is a problem though.

2 points by rando77 2y ago

You are welcome to run your projects this way, but other people can choose how they want to run their projects. Rich Hickey's "Open Source is Not About You" offers some opinions from the creator of several large, successful projects: https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba9519972d9 https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba95...

rando77 2y ago
Not my project I just posted it because it was an interesting model. If like to see if integrating something like gitpay, which allows you to put bounties on issues could be included in giving people weight in something like world driven. I'm interested in models of open source that are more sustainable
- thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
  I agree with you on those ideas. Sustainability is a huge issue and bounties could help. I think a lot of Rich Hickey's complaints were due to stress from dealing with entitled community members with little support from individuals and corporate users. People can be relentless in their demands and project maintainers and contributers only have so much time and energy. Paying them could help somewhat in terms of motivation and resources. This new model is interesting, but seems a bit like "magical thinking" project management born from frustration about how some open source maintainers run their projects. It assumes that all pull requests are worth pulling, thus "time-based auto merges". It assumes that anyone who wants to should be able to contribute should be able to. While that sounds good superficially, in can lead to situations like the xz utils backdoor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor).
  - rando77 2y ago
    If there are active maintainers they can just close PRs that aren't worth pulling. It's true that it makes malicious takeover easier. If personally liked something that allowed vetos from downstream projects. As they have skin in the game on what gets merged. I wasn't thinking about the time based auto merging when I came across this project. I don't know how much project orphaning is a problem though.