Live data from Hacker News

Open source is not about you (2018)

gist.github.com

111–120 of 196 posts

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#111
post #95
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - If you make your project public, it means you want and expect people to use it. no, it doesn't, maybe I have a github project, I want to easily share it with ten of my friends for something, I don't particularly care if other people see it, so I make it public. That in no way implies I want random people to come along with bugs and PRs. > You could at least write some documentation, so I don't waste my time and t…

> no, it doesn't, maybe I have a github project, I want to easily share it with ten of my friends for something, Then make it private. > I don't particularly care if other people see it, so I make it public. Yeah, I see someone else made the same argument. It's a reckless disregard of other people's time and nerves. Build labyrinths and scatter them around the internet. Leave manholes uncovered. Markov chains to trap…

> Then make it private

You don't get to decide that.

> It's a reckless disregard of other people's time and nerves. Build labyrinths and scatter them around the internet. Leave manholes uncovered.

That's a *you* problem, because you have wrong expectations.

> Then close bug tracker and post "Abandoned" on the front page.

You don't get to decide that.

> Then say so and then reject them. That's what PR review means. I don't have a problem with rejected PRs. I have a problem with ignored PRs.

Another case of you having wrong expectations. Like in networking, you should put a timeout on all requests. For all practical purposes a request that times out is to be treated the same as a rejection.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#112

I don't know why people keep sharing this. It's highly offensive and inflammatory. Plenty of open source projects consider themselves a community which welcome newcomers, take governance seriously, and ensure that even if suggestions or contributions are rejected, it's done in a thoughtful and considerate way. Acting like a jerk isn't a blueprint for how to be a good maintainer, it's how to be a jerk. And this "us ex…

Calling someone a jerk for their views on how OSS should or shouldn’t function isn’t appropriate.

It’s actually completely out of line and smacks of the very entitlement described in the piece.

Don’t agree with his views? Go make your own project and run it however you want.

Cultural poison? The truly cultured understand that a monoculture would be the real poison. There’s room for all modes of operation in OSS. Without “jerks”, there’d be no Linux and there would be nothing else of high value either.

If you want to sit around and hold hands then find a project where they do that, or maybe just take up finger painting.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#113

I don't know why people keep sharing this. It's highly offensive and inflammatory. Plenty of open source projects consider themselves a community which welcome newcomers, take governance seriously, and ensure that even if suggestions or contributions are rejected, it's done in a thoughtful and considerate way. Acting like a jerk isn't a blueprint for how to be a good maintainer, it's how to be a jerk. And this "us ex…

> It's highly offensive and inflammatory.

It is sane and factually correct.

> Plenty of open source projects consider themselves a community which welcome newcomers, take governance seriously

Rich is taking governance very seriously. Others aren't and give nobodies the right to vote. In any case, he's factually correct. Nothing in open source implies anything about any type of governance, as "Open source is a licensing and delivery mechanism, period".

> Acting like a jerk

Pot, meet kettle.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not disagreeing that people get entitled about the gifts they think they’re bringing to someone else’s party. Yeah it’s frustrating and sometimes it’s bonkers. Don’t bring “lutefisk” to someone else’s party and expect to be celebrated as a hero. That doesn’t absolve the host of all scrutiny in perpetuity, and that’s usually how these conversations go. This is a popularity contest and trying to have that conversat…

A gift economy only exists between people who agree that they are participating in one. Gifts between equals create expectations of reciprocity. If you use open source software, you are expected to contribute. Accepting a gift without an intention to reciprocate is an admission of social inferiority. Users who don't see themselves as socially inferior to developers are not participating in the gift economy and not bo…

No, emphatically not. We are surrounded by them and people behave as if they are without acknowledging it. Saying it isn’t so doesn’t change the fact that we give more attention to people who [give] us free shit. It’s baked into our little monkey brains.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#115
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So much grief." It sounds like you're trying to interpret Hickey's emotions. How would you check whether your interpretation is accurate?

I don't know if you're a native English speaker, so apologies if this isn't appropriate. But the word 'grief' has more than one vernacular meaning. "Giving someone grief" means giving someone a hard time. So "he experienced so much grief" can just mean that it can just mean that people criticised him. It doesn't necessarily express anything about Rich Hickey's state of mind.

[deleted]

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#116

> As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all As a user of Hackernews you're not thereby entitled to anything at all. As a member of the thing (forums, discord channels, facebook groups, any online community and real life community) you're not necessarily thereby entitled to anything at all. Even as a user of some proprietary software , you're still not entitled to anything exce…

> It doesn't mean expressing your opinions about Hackernews, the thing or some proprietary software, even negative ones, is inherently wrong. I agree. I’ve often wondered why open source maintainers get worked up over this. You can just ignore them. Odds are the maintainer spent zero seconds thinking about the person before the negativity over the course of their entire lives to that point. Why let them have free ren…

There's a very good reason: we need the users to be aware of this, and exert self-restraint in communications with the developer team otherwise public fora become untenable and the core team, to avoid being pestered, will be forced to switch to closed, invite-only, comms channels (private mailing lists, private Discord servers, etc...). It's very valuable to be able to keep publicly accessible channels.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#117
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is not space in the collective consciousness for an infinite number of solutions to the same problem. I usually get downvoted for pointing this out but it explains why people shit on you when you start getting defensive about people calling your solution or attitude shit. Reasonable people won’t start a project in an already oversubscribed niche. So yes, it does matter if you’re doing more than the minimum. It’…

The biggest assholes in your example are the people saying "Fuck Timothy". It's also not my fault those people are assholes. If they don't like my party that's fine. If they say i don't have music or whatever that's fine. If they tell me I don't know how to run parties and all parties need to have music and snacks or else its not a party I'm gonna tell them to fuck off.

I’ve never been the popular kid for more than a few minutes. It felt weird when it happened, both due to impostor syndrome and the unfortunate situations where it most often happened. Like an altercation where I found I was seen more than I thought.

But I’ve been involved with highly successful clubs from a young age, and I have to take things apart to understand them. I also lived for ten years with a woman who wanted to not only be in every club she saw but take over them, and I got a good anthropology study in to what things she made better and which she made worse (did I mention we aren’t together anymore?)

The reasons they were popular often turned out not to be the reasons I would have thought. Stupid little things like keeping a consistent location and meeting time seem small but the outcomes are outsized.

(Inline edit, I’m such a space cadet I left out the punchline) one of the biggest is figuring out how to successfully channel the enthusiasm of new members 90% of which will be gone in 6-18 months. Which OSS has in truckloads.

As I’ve matured I’ve realized that I should not dream of being in charge of these organizations anymore. The qualities (or energies really) I possess in insufficient quantities to keep that many plates spinning. Properly. So I help those people be the leaders we need, and I hop in when the stars align and my energies are sufficient to take something off their plate. And god forbid they get hit by a bus and I become acting president of VP, my first effort would be in grooming a replacement, not trying to take over.

You can’t have an objective conversation about this sort of stuff with people who still have a chip on their shoulder about how they’re right and the universe is wrong for not understanding how amazing you are. You’re right, but you’re also tragically wrong. And until you grasp that you will be railing against the universe for the indignities it thrust upon you.

I get that vibe in a lot of these conversations. And I wish I knew how to find the people who understand this. All I can do is talk to the people who rail and hope the silent audience gets something from it.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#118
post #23

Tangent It's funny how a hobby project becomes "a burden" when you have to consider making it friendly/easy to consume by everyone eg. writing docs from the basics like how to make a venv in python, get your env setup...

One of the issues is that even if you do write documentation, some people that say they want to contribute will not search for it and directly proceed to ask the overworked maintainer to point them to the exact page of the documentation of their interest.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#119
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no, it doesn't, maybe I have a github project, I want to easily share it with ten of my friends for something, Then make it private. > I don't particularly care if other people see it, so I make it public. Yeah, I see someone else made the same argument. It's a reckless disregard of other people's time and nerves. Build labyrinths and scatter them around the internet. Leave manholes uncovered. Markov chains to trap…

Sorry, unless your IP is being infringed, you don't get to decide what's private or public. The internet is a vast and wondrous place. Figuring out which parts of it are worth your time is a you problem.

Picture this scenario.

You make one really good birthday cake. Following the success of this went to your local school fete out of the goodness of your heart and set up a cake stall, had a complaints and suggestions box on the table, maybe even had a donation tin out. You know it's out of the goodness of you heart because everyone will SEE you doing this and maybe you'll get hired by the local bakery.

But then it's a bit of a long day and you start screaming at everyone who came up to you for wasting your time, rejected requests to not put broken glass fragments in the cakes, get into a fistfight with the local health inspector who pointed out you need certain food prep hygiene practices. You get big mad, and leave your stall in a huff, where hapless strangers stumble across your cakes only to find they are now covered in bugs and get sick from eating them.

Would this be acceptable or unacceptable behaviour on your part? Are you as the cake stall operator taking advantage of the the commons in any way (donations, showing off your bake-folio?) Are you damaging the commons or people visiting the commons? Does your free speech expressed in cake form outweigh the rights of people to tell you to change what you are doing? Does your freedom of expression mean you should never be accountable? Should people be thankful that you let them have cakes covered in bugs, even if they get sick as a result? Does the local health inspector who is an expert in a domain that overlaps with everything food have any standing?

This is a contrived thought exercise; obviously.

But I would bet that you clearly identify that violated social norms aren't great; you would agree there are expectations about access to a commons have implied standards of behaviour for all parties; you have expectations around quality vs general safety, etc.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#120
post #111
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no, it doesn't, maybe I have a github project, I want to easily share it with ten of my friends for something, Then make it private. > I don't particularly care if other people see it, so I make it public. Yeah, I see someone else made the same argument. It's a reckless disregard of other people's time and nerves. Build labyrinths and scatter them around the internet. Leave manholes uncovered. Markov chains to trap…

> Then make it private You don't get to decide that. > It's a reckless disregard of other people's time and nerves. Build labyrinths and scatter them around the internet. Leave manholes uncovered. That's a *you* problem, because you have wrong expectations. > Then close bug tracker and post "Abandoned" on the front page. You don't get to decide that. > Then say so and then reject them. That's what PR review means. I…

> [...] you have wrong expectations.

I did. (Past tense.) I'm calibrated now.

> You don't get to decide that.

You're exactly right. I only get to decide what I do with my own toys. And I've decided I won't waste any of my time. If you (plural) can't write a one line answer to a bug report or click a reject PR button, then why should I put any effort?

Isn't it nice "git clone" was invented?

Post reply on HN