8 ms·

> why did the developer decide to add the feature in the first place? Was it community feedback or some other mechanism that inspired this choice? You're movin

> why did the developer decide to add the feature in the first place? Was it community feedback or some other mechanism that inspired this choice? You're moving the goalposts and again putting the developer in a position where they have to justify themselves. Which they don't. As GP puts it: "But iTerm is a free (both as in gratis and as in libre) open source project. The developer released a feature that they were probably happy and excited about."

akira2501 2y ago
> putting the developer in a position where they have to justify themselves I'm putting those who offer criticism of the community at large in a position to justify why they're surprised by the outcome. > The developer released a feature that they were probably happy and excited about. Then they should ignore the criticism. If you want to build what your heart desires there is nothing stopping you. If you expect the community who uses your software to uncritically accept what you've done and offer no negative feedback then the fact you've given it away for free (while at the same time accepting sponsorship money) is not a valid position to take.
- Cu3PO42 2y ago
  > I'm putting those who offer criticism of the community at large in a position to justify why they're surprised by the outcome. I'm not surprised. I'm disappointed. > If you expect the community who uses your software to uncritically accept what you've done and offer no negative feedback [...] My point isn't that there shouldn't be feedback. Feedback is important, both positive and negative, especially if it's constructive. But you can and should (and this is really my point) present negative feedback in a manner that is respectful of the project and the developers. It doesn't need to be unkind. Take this exchange, for example. We may disagree, you may dislike my arguments and I may dislike yours, but we're having a civil discussion. This is healthy. Some of the feedback in relation to this feature on the other hand wasn't in good faith and wasn't civil. There have been allegations of covert data collection, personal attacks on the developers and vocabulary such as 'piece of crap'. This is the behavior I'm criticizing.

akira2501 2y ago

> putting the developer in a position where they have to justify themselves I'm putting those who offer criticism of the community at large in a position to justify why they're surprised by the outcome. > The developer released a feature that they were probably happy and excited about. Then they should ignore the criticism. If you want to build what your heart desires there is nothing stopping you. If you expect the community who uses your software to uncritically accept what you've done and offer no negative feedback then the fact you've given it away for free (while at the same time accepting sponsorship money) is not a valid position to take.

Cu3PO42 2y ago
> I'm putting those who offer criticism of the community at large in a position to justify why they're surprised by the outcome. I'm not surprised. I'm disappointed. > If you expect the community who uses your software to uncritically accept what you've done and offer no negative feedback [...] My point isn't that there shouldn't be feedback. Feedback is important, both positive and negative, especially if it's constructive. But you can and should (and this is really my point) present negative feedback in a manner that is respectful of the project and the developers. It doesn't need to be unkind. Take this exchange, for example. We may disagree, you may dislike my arguments and I may dislike yours, but we're having a civil discussion. This is healthy. Some of the feedback in relation to this feature on the other hand wasn't in good faith and wasn't civil. There have been allegations of covert data collection, personal attacks on the developers and vocabulary such as 'piece of crap'. This is the behavior I'm criticizing.