4 ms·
This is an open source tool meaning that maintainers can communicate however they like. If you don’t like it, you can fork it and do things your own way. But th
by hluska 2y ago
This is an open source tool meaning that maintainers can communicate however they like. If you don’t like it, you can fork it and do things your own way. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with temporarily disabling comments. If anything, that’s a sign of self care and this wisdom.
A little more empathy wouldn’t hurt you.
- OutOfHere 2y agoI have plenty of empathy; it is just not biased the way you want it to be. As it stands, the software has a misleading and lying readme, asking to use Discussions when this is not even possible. A little broader perspective won't hurt you.
- hluska 2y agoWhen it comes to open source maintainers, my perspective is really simple. They are volunteers who spend their free time so that I can build cool things for zero dollars. My demands are proportional to the terms ‘volunteers’, ‘free time’ and ‘zero dollars’. But if you’re this passionate about communications in open source projects, I know you could find hundreds of projects that need help with documentation and overall communications. Use the passion and good things will come.
- OutOfHere 2y agoSo you think they can push whatever nonsense and liabilities they want upon users? No, they cannot. By offering a software, as advertised in its readme, they're in effect making a particular promise. They do not get an automatic right to violate this promise. If they cannot maintain the software, especially when it comes to major bugs, the repo should be set to Archived. In the case of this repo, since user interaction is disabled, it is even impossible to know which other major bugs may exist as would've otherwise been reported by users. Being a volunteer is no excuse to be horrible.