> The benefits of open source must make up for the fact that: It’s hard to deal with unappreciative or rude feedback It’s hard to manage long back-and-

> The benefits of open source must make up for the fact that: It’s hard to deal with unappreciative or rude feedback It’s hard to manage long back-and-forth feedback cycles It’s hard to decline a contribution that was submitted without approval It’s hard to say no to most things once the project has matured It’s hard when a good contributor leaves It’s hard to accept that people are working for no pay It’s hard to feel good about 1000+ open issues It’s hard that it never stops. > The list could go on, but you get the point; open source is hard and it takes a toll on your emotional well-being. The only way open source can work is in a corporate setting where full-time maintainers are paid to manage the project, can take breaks, and be replaced if desired. I think a better answer lies in Rich Hickey's piece [0]. Making a project open source is not about making it a community project. You don't need to have contributors, or accept ideas. You don't even need to take feedback. I think Github's model of open source encourage the same kind of issue that social media have. By default, it encourages everyone to provide their opinion and ideas to something that is essentially yours. It does not work in the real world, and it does not work here. You only need to add an issue trackers, if you care about tracking issues. You only need to accept contributions if you want to accept others' work. I still think email's collaboration and exchanging patches make more sense in community projects. PR and issue work best when there's a fixed set of collaborators and not external inputs. [0]: https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba9519972d9 https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba95...