[drenvuk]

It's like you only read the end of my post and skipped the rest of it. I'm going to be a dick here when I say this but this is the reason I have my way of dealing with things people... What you just posted is useless. I don't give a damn. If need be I will fork it, work on it, submit a PR if I make something useful and take what's useful that other people have made for my own code, even among the other forks/branches people have made if it's easy enough to find.

My interaction with them is limited to the functionality of the code that I have written and the bare minimum effort needed to let them know of its existence. Anything more is a waste of my time - I have things to build.

[tejaswidp]

I know what you mean, but it's not as clear cut as you think it is.

You don't operate in a vacuum when you work on projects. What if you think someone is wrong? Being direct might be a risk, because then the community might not be seen as "welcoming to newcomers" anymore.

I mean, ideas don't come out of nowhere for projects, and people who care about things, will be passionate about them. What if someone comes in the way of you building things? What then?

[mwwilson]

>You don't operate in a vacuum when you work on projects.

OP Is exactly describing working in a vacuum. They've got no ego invested in the project and whoever does can decide if they want to use their modifications.

>What if someone comes in the way of you building things? What then?

I don't think you're describing someone getting in the way of you building something. It seems more like, "What if you don't feel validated, by some community, after you built something?" Which is something leadership of any project might choose to evaluate. Does the project benefit more by trying to provide validation to everyone who makes an attempt to contribute or not?

In my experience, providing validation for anyone other than children is an enormous waste of time. Especially when building something.