While I agree with the gist of your reply, I would make one amendment: "open source" _is_ typically an economic endeavor, or maybe more accurately a financial

While I agree with the gist of your reply, I would make one amendment: "open source" _is_ typically an economic endeavor, or maybe more accurately a financial one. "free software" is typically not intended for productized distribution, and I think more accurately expresses what you''re saying above. The original "free software" model was development by user/developers, who started with the motivation to make s/w that they wanted/needed to use. The software is then distributed to other users, for possible modification, or just for end use. This was intended to facilitate the freedom of the user, by not being bound by the profit motive of a corporate developer, but instead benefiting from the user serving motivations of user/developers. Many businesses had issues with the "user freedom" orientation of free software, and created the moniker "open source". Which is unlike free software in the sense that it is often for the purpose of creating a for profit product. For profit is fine, as a concept, but it often causes the motives of the developers (or their controlling managers) to be oriented towards the advantages provided to a product vendor, instead of advantages provided explicitly for end users. Things like user tracking and data exfiltration are examples of these non-user motives, This is all somewhat of an aside. Your statements above about not taking other people's criticisms onboard are very valid. Just the fact that a developer would feel pressured by these demands does indicate a caring personality. Finding a balance between caring and not being overwhelmed is a current issue that many developers are trying to resolve.