5 ms·

Comparing mainainers being socially obligated to respond to questions to actual slavery, is unseemly. If people don’t want the social burden of being a public

by teddyh 2y ago

Comparing mainainers being socially obligated to respond to questions to actual slavery, is unseemly. If people don’t want the social burden of being a public person or even the relatively small burden of having a public project, they have the option of not being public.

marcus0x62 2y ago
Or -- stay with me -- they have the option of running their public project in the manner and with the level of effort they want. If you don't like that, you are free to run your own projects according to your own standards.
- teddyh 2y ago
  People “have the option” to say whatever they want – it’s called Free Speech, and it’s an important legal right. But that does not mean that I think that everything people do say is right and proper. I can, and will, criticize people for what they say, and I will also criticize maintainers who treat their users with less than reasonable respect. You are conflating legal rights with what is socially or ethically right, and I think this is a dubious rhetorical trick.
  - marcus0x62 2y ago
    I don't "keep" doing anything - this is the first and only time I've ever replied to one of your comments, nor have I said anything that a reasonable person could construe as conflating legal obligations and social etiquette. I'm well aware of the difference between between the two concepts. What I, along with basically everyone else in this thread, is telling you is that this social obligation on the part of open source maintainers you seem the believe in is not a thing. People who give away their software for free do not owe any debt to anyone who might choose to use that software. As I said to the 1 (one) other person who seems to agree with you here, the relevant social etiquette is "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
    - teddyh 2y ago
      > I don't "keep" doing anything Fair; I have edited. > this social obligation on the part of open source maintainers you seem the believe in is not a thing. Many people do think it’s a thing, though. See my links to past threads, where I am far from alone in my opinion. See also various Linux Distributions’ rules for maintainers.
      - Novosell 2y ago
        Those rules are generally not put in place by users though, they're put in place by other maintainers right?
        teddyh 2y ago
        By other maintainers, yes, but for the benefit of users. Also, if these minimal levels of decency (which I suggest) are in fact so onerous to surely drive all maintainers to burnout (as frequently claimed, even in this thread), why, then, are they mandated by distributions?
      - marcus0x62 2y ago
        > Many people do think it’s a thing, though. See my links to past threads, where I am far from alone in my opinion. See also various Linux Distributions’ rules for maintainers. Against my better judgement, I read through the first thread you linked to. If there are any substantial number of people writing there that agree with your position that open source maintainers have a "social obligation" -- or anything similar -- to the users of the software they give away for free, I missed it. Most of the replies to your comments I saw there were people trying to explain the same things we are trying to convey here, followed by your steadfast refusal to deal with reality. I mean, at one point you responded to a quoted section of an MIT-style license and said: > That text does not disclaim support, security bugfixes, and future development. On the contrary, all three of those things are probably either heavlily implied or outright stated to be available on the project web site. ... when the first two lines of the quoted license does exactly that. To wit: > ... PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND ... ... which means the copyright holders disclaim support, bug fixes, and future development. That's literally what providing something "AS IS" means. It is provided as it currently is. I don't think continuing to engage with you here on an even more nebulous concept ('social obligation') when you are unable or unwilling to objectively deal with written text is going to be a good use of my time. Have a nice day.
  - pjot 2y ago
    When Forest Gump said “I’m pretty tired, I think I’ll go home now” was he breaking an obligation to keep running just because others were following him?
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Well in this case, imagine if he didn't say that, or say anything. It would be pretty rude.
      - teddyh 2y ago
        Exactly. A modicum of respect is all I expect.
      - akerl_ 2y ago
        If I go for a jog, and a bunch of people start jogging behind me that I didn’t solicit in any way, then no… it is not rude of me to just stop jogging and go home without saying anything to them.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        If you spent many hours, days, months with them it would be. Come on.
        akerl_ 2y ago
        Why? Why does doing something in public for a long time create an obligation to people who see me do it.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        They're doing it with you, so you should at least say goodbye. I don't know what I can say for "why" other than go find a manners book and a philosophy book.
zoogeny 2y ago
Why only two options? It seems limiting the options of engagement only serves to create a false dichotomy for the purposes of supporting your argument. If the only two options are to become obligated to the public or not to engage at all, what a sad world this would be. Thankfully, there are many, many alternate options in the reality we share, even if not in your imagined reality.
- teddyh 2y ago
  I only mentioned two options to simplify. I agree that there are many levels, as I have written about previously: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19538256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19538256>
  - zoogeny 2y ago
    I could write a lot about this but you may be too dug in to hear it. The obvious rebuttals are "caveat emptor", don't judge a book by its cover, don't buy a product just because the box looks professional, etc. But you are actually arguing for something different. You are insisting on an implication where the rest of us don't see one. If a project has nice documentation, an up-to-date license, etc. you believe that there is ethical/moral implication that the maintainer will fulfil some responsibility. This isn't just about misrepresentation (which is almost a side-effect), it is about a proposed belief in duty, almost like a chivalry that goes beyond gentleman-ness. I tend to think of Postel's law in those circumstances, liberal in what I accept and conservative in what I do. I've heard it said that the happiest cultures of the world have low expectations.
brudgers 2y ago
The degree to which you demand obligation is the degree to which you make equivalence.

by teddyh 2y ago

marcus0x62 2y ago

Or -- stay with me -- they have the option of running their public project in the manner and with the level of effort they want. If you don't like that, you are free to run your own projects according to your own standards.

teddyh 2y ago
People “have the option” to say whatever they want – it’s called Free Speech, and it’s an important legal right. But that does not mean that I think that everything people do say is right and proper. I can, and will, criticize people for what they say, and I will also criticize maintainers who treat their users with less than reasonable respect. You are conflating legal rights with what is socially or ethically right, and I think this is a dubious rhetorical trick.
- marcus0x62 2y ago
  I don't "keep" doing anything - this is the first and only time I've ever replied to one of your comments, nor have I said anything that a reasonable person could construe as conflating legal obligations and social etiquette. I'm well aware of the difference between between the two concepts. What I, along with basically everyone else in this thread, is telling you is that this social obligation on the part of open source maintainers you seem the believe in is not a thing. People who give away their software for free do not owe any debt to anyone who might choose to use that software. As I said to the 1 (one) other person who seems to agree with you here, the relevant social etiquette is "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
  - teddyh 2y ago
    > I don't "keep" doing anything Fair; I have edited. > this social obligation on the part of open source maintainers you seem the believe in is not a thing. Many people do think it’s a thing, though. See my links to past threads, where I am far from alone in my opinion. See also various Linux Distributions’ rules for maintainers.
    - Novosell 2y ago
      Those rules are generally not put in place by users though, they're put in place by other maintainers right?
      - teddyh 2y ago
        By other maintainers, yes, but for the benefit of users. Also, if these minimal levels of decency (which I suggest) are in fact so onerous to surely drive all maintainers to burnout (as frequently claimed, even in this thread), why, then, are they mandated by distributions?
    - marcus0x62 2y ago
      > Many people do think it’s a thing, though. See my links to past threads, where I am far from alone in my opinion. See also various Linux Distributions’ rules for maintainers. Against my better judgement, I read through the first thread you linked to. If there are any substantial number of people writing there that agree with your position that open source maintainers have a "social obligation" -- or anything similar -- to the users of the software they give away for free, I missed it. Most of the replies to your comments I saw there were people trying to explain the same things we are trying to convey here, followed by your steadfast refusal to deal with reality. I mean, at one point you responded to a quoted section of an MIT-style license and said: > That text does not disclaim support, security bugfixes, and future development. On the contrary, all three of those things are probably either heavlily implied or outright stated to be available on the project web site. ... when the first two lines of the quoted license does exactly that. To wit: > ... PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND ... ... which means the copyright holders disclaim support, bug fixes, and future development. That's literally what providing something "AS IS" means. It is provided as it currently is. I don't think continuing to engage with you here on an even more nebulous concept ('social obligation') when you are unable or unwilling to objectively deal with written text is going to be a good use of my time. Have a nice day.
- pjot 2y ago
  When Forest Gump said “I’m pretty tired, I think I’ll go home now” was he breaking an obligation to keep running just because others were following him?
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Well in this case, imagine if he didn't say that, or say anything. It would be pretty rude.
    - teddyh 2y ago
      Exactly. A modicum of respect is all I expect.
    - akerl_ 2y ago
      If I go for a jog, and a bunch of people start jogging behind me that I didn’t solicit in any way, then no… it is not rude of me to just stop jogging and go home without saying anything to them.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        If you spent many hours, days, months with them it would be. Come on.
        akerl_ 2y ago
        Why? Why does doing something in public for a long time create an obligation to people who see me do it.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        They're doing it with you, so you should at least say goodbye. I don't know what I can say for "why" other than go find a manners book and a philosophy book.

zoogeny 2y ago

Why only two options? It seems limiting the options of engagement only serves to create a false dichotomy for the purposes of supporting your argument. If the only two options are to become obligated to the public or not to engage at all, what a sad world this would be. Thankfully, there are many, many alternate options in the reality we share, even if not in your imagined reality.

teddyh 2y ago
I only mentioned two options to simplify. I agree that there are many levels, as I have written about previously: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19538256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19538256>
- zoogeny 2y ago
  I could write a lot about this but you may be too dug in to hear it. The obvious rebuttals are "caveat emptor", don't judge a book by its cover, don't buy a product just because the box looks professional, etc. But you are actually arguing for something different. You are insisting on an implication where the rest of us don't see one. If a project has nice documentation, an up-to-date license, etc. you believe that there is ethical/moral implication that the maintainer will fulfil some responsibility. This isn't just about misrepresentation (which is almost a side-effect), it is about a proposed belief in duty, almost like a chivalry that goes beyond gentleman-ness. I tend to think of Postel's law in those circumstances, liberal in what I accept and conservative in what I do. I've heard it said that the happiest cultures of the world have low expectations.

brudgers 2y ago

The degree to which you demand obligation is the degree to which you make equivalence.