Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toxicity in Open Source Discussions

tylercipriani.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Toxicity in Open Source Discussions

#51

Post by fmajid »

strken wrote: post #11
mdekkers wrote: post #5

I stopped contributing to Open Source in any meaningful way in 2004 due to the incredible amount of non-stop entitlement and toxicity. I am working on a project with a few other folks and the subject of “to open source or not” has come up a few times, and in principle I think we should open source, but in practice I can do without the meaningless drama in my life.

You can always go the SQLite way and refuse to accept patches: https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html . Or go further and refuse to accept feature requests, or even turn down bug reports!

He doesn’t refuse feature requests, indeed he completely revised his development process to meet the mission-critical needs of Airbus or Android, just not randos on the Internet. He also followed Mitchell Baker of Mozilla’s advice to keep developers in control of the SQLite foundation.

Re: Toxicity in Open Source Discussions

#52

Post by drewcoo »

It's not toxic. It's not going to kill anyone. It's just antisocial behavior.

You'd think we'd expect antisocial behavior to result from people being physically isolated, unable to pick up on the usual cues from one another and not able to be "policed" by the social group.

You know what else is antisocial? Constantly shouting about how toxic non-toxic things are. That alarmism only feeds knee-jerk reactions and sets people against one another.

Re: Toxicity in Open Source Discussions

#53

Post by breakerofbuilds »

digdigdag wrote: post #32

I think the sense entitlement goes both ways. Sometimes maintainers get the wrong idea that their work is above critique because it's open source. Such that even when presented with reasonable feedback, they balk and snap at the contributor. "Well if you don't like feature X, why don't you GTFO and fork it". For some reason it's okay for contributions to be critiqued but not the projects. Who gave this poor author th…

Yes, nothing is free, when I start using an open source project I make some assumptions on what to expect from the project. Based on those assumptions I will invest more or less time learning and integrating the project into my workflow.

The problem arise when my expectations doesn't match the project maintainers expectation.

Ideally every project should announce clearly for newcomers what to expect. Will there be be features, how fast will bugs be investigated and fixed, at what cost.

Re: Toxicity in Open Source Discussions

#54

Post by breakerofbuilds »

Entitlement is a mismatch between expectations.

Frowning upon entitlement will not fix that.

Instead be clear on what to expect. What is the goal of the project. Do you want users, what you expect from them? What do you offer in return?

This must be clearly communicated even before a newcomers starts spending time learning the project, because then they have already invested time based on their own expectations and assumptions.

Re: Toxicity in Open Source Discussions

#55

Post by strken »

fmajid wrote: post #51
strken wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can always go the SQLite way and refuse to accept patches: https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html . Or go further and refuse to accept feature requests, or even turn down bug reports!

He doesn’t refuse feature requests, indeed he completely revised his development process to meet the mission-critical needs of Airbus or Android, just not randos on the Internet. He also followed Mitchell Baker of Mozilla’s advice to keep developers in control of the SQLite foundation.

No, but you could go further than him and refuse them, if you wanted to.

Re: Toxicity in Open Source Discussions

#56

Post by jollofricepeas »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #41
jollofricepeas wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s just be honest. I won’t use the “U-word” because it usually sets HN on fire everytime it’s used. BUT …the conditions are such that maintainers should bargain collectively. THE CONDITIONS: - entitled people screaming at you to do stuff. - corporations taking advantage of you. - being paid very little.

How on Earth could open source maintainers possibly unionize. What am I missing that makes your suggestion remotely feasible or value adding? Am I a scab if I fork a union FOSS project?

Go ahead and fork the top 50 FOSS libraries and maintain them yourself.

But if maintainers quit en masse. We’d learn to appreciate them a bit more.

Re: Toxicity in Open Source Discussions

#57

Post by DiggyJohnson »

jollofricepeas wrote: post #56
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How on Earth could open source maintainers possibly unionize. What am I missing that makes your suggestion remotely feasible or value adding? Am I a scab if I fork a union FOSS project?

Go ahead and fork the top 50 FOSS libraries and maintain them yourself. But if maintainers quit en masse. We’d learn to appreciate them a bit more.

I don't want to do that, and I also think many FOSS maintainers are underappreciated.

I was asking about how this could possibly work from a regulation and union rules perspective.

Re: Toxicity in Open Source Discussions

#58

Post by jollofricepeas »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #57
jollofricepeas wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go ahead and fork the top 50 FOSS libraries and maintain them yourself. But if maintainers quit en masse. We’d learn to appreciate them a bit more.

I don't want to do that, and I also think many FOSS maintainers are underappreciated. I was asking about how this could possibly work from a regulation and union rules perspective.

A traditional union wouldn’t work because there isn’t a single employer.

It would have to be a trade or membership association like ASCAP that sets standards, advocates for members and engages with industry.

Re: Toxicity in Open Source Discussions

#59

Post by redivysoft »

drewcoo wrote: post #52

It's not toxic. It's not going to kill anyone. It's just antisocial behavior. You'd think we'd expect antisocial behavior to result from people being physically isolated, unable to pick up on the usual cues from one another and not able to be "policed" by the social group. You know what else is antisocial? Constantly shouting about how toxic non-toxic things are. That alarmism only feeds knee-jerk reactions and sets…

Linguistic prescriptivism in the wild, fascinating.

Re: Toxicity in Open Source Discussions

#60

Post by Jcowell »

dnissley wrote: post #44
Gigachad wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never interact online with your real name. The internet is not a real place. Block the people who are annoying and get on with doing what you enjoy. They can try to cancel your online name all they want. It doesn't matter.

I disagree with never using your real name. The internet is a real place. Block liberally, absolutely. Use anon accounts liberally as well.

Yeah I never understand that saying. The internet isn’t a physical place but it’s still a place.
Post reply on HN