[rckoepke]

> it's not a maintainer's responsibility to follow best-practices, respond to feedback/PRs, or respond in any coherent way to anything asked of them.

I mean, I'd say that it is a maintainer's responsibility to do some of these things. If they can't, they should allow another interested&qualified person to be the maintainer instead. I understand that it's their right to abdicate these responsibilities. It's not illegal or anything. They can choose to be irresponsible, yes. But personally, I think that maintaining the repo is the maintainer's responsibility. And I think the responsible way to do that involves "following best-practices, responding to feedback/PRs, or responding in any coherent way to anything asked of them."

I'm NOT saying a maintainer should have to add features to satiate the masses. I'm merely saying that a "maintainer" has some small duty to "maintain" a product, and also acknowledging that they have a legal right to abdicate that responsibility.

I'm not sure anyone should be immune from social criticism. They can always make someone else the maintainer and avoid any future work/limelight/criticism.

I won't touch the childish vs. adult debate as it pertains to abdicating one's responsibilities.

I am also NOT saying that people should "expect to be be served high-quality open-source software for free, and then outrage when it isn't." But it seems like it's a maintainer's responsibility to allow (and maybe even facilitate) competent, motivated individuals to contribute to their open-source project.

I also don't know exactly what the reddit brigading involved, this is the first time I've heard of this story. Harassment obviously is not okay and, not coincidentally, is illegal.

[cycloptic]

Not everyone who uploads an open source project to some random cloud hosting service (i.e. Github) is qualified or wants to be a maintainer. Remember that being a maintainer is equivalent to project management. A lot of people publishing open source code don't seem to care about this and just want to write interesting programs. And that's fine. I personally have sent patches to lots of people who just never responded and their activity trailed off. Doesn't bother me in the slightest, that's what the "fork" button is for.

You also say "legal right" but it's incredibly vague what this is supposed to mean. Nobody cares about this stuff unless the project reaches a certain level of popularity. So once you get over 1000 github stars, should github force you to sign a contract saying you'll respond to emails in a timely manner or they take away your stars? I don't think I need to explain why that doesn't make any sense.

[rckoepke]

No, no, no - none of this is about legality. Just sometimes people bring it up as a framework for determining responsibilities, so I addressed it ahead of time. I don't think (legal requirements) == (responsibilities). The sets may have some overlap but clearly they are not identical.

Instead, I am just saying that if I upload a "cool tool" to github, and I notice that it has become super popular, and I don't have time/interest/inclination to maintain it --- I would personally feel a RESPONSIBILITY, and probably social obligation (not a legal obligation) to either put a note saying "this is not actively maintained, please find an up-to-date fork. user/cooltool seems to have community support but I can't personally endorse it." or simply make some other people additional/replacement maintainers for the project which I'm not interested in maintaining anymore.

[cycloptic]

Maybe you do, I'm sure people would appreciate that, but it's not necessary. The nature of these things is that the users are already "following the herd" to a degree. So if the maintainer becomes inactive and a fork picks up the interest, they will just move to that. No ceremony required.

[stjohnswarts]

It's not their responsibility. If you want to use the software then use it, if you don't want to use their software then walk away. They don't owe you anything outside of what they are willing to pay with their personal time. No one forces you to use the software. It's open source and YOU are free to take the code and run with it if you don't like it.

[bpt3]

Notice how every single line in your comment starts with "I".

You alone decided that maintainers have all these obligations (which I would consider reasonable things to do for the record), but the maintainer of this library doesn't agree, and the license doesn't require it, so you're just setting yourself up for disappointment here.

[rckoepke]

It seems much of the disagreement may stem from lack of consensus around the semantics of:

'responsibility'

'requirement' 'obligation' 'should' 'can'

I believe responsibilities are personal/societal. They're part of a value system. However, I think I could collate a breadth of sources from landmark open source discussions which show that there are existing major themes for what a maintainer has a responsibility to do (that the open source community has a somewhat predefined value system existing wrt to topic).

I accept that it's not a consensus.

I just don't think we should conflate obligations, requirements, and responsibilities. That leads to vehement disagreements.

[bpt3]

> I believe responsibilities are personal/societal. They're part of a value system. However, I think I could collate a breadth of sources from landmark open source discussions which show that there are existing major themes for what a maintainer has a responsibility to do (that the open source community has a somewhat predefined value system existing wrt to topic).

I agree with all of this, but I also feel that you need to be mentally prepared for any maintainer to fail to meet these moral responsibilities unless you want to be disappointed and should act accordingly (not saying you don't already do this in practice).

> I accept that it's not a consensus. I just don't think we should conflate obligations, requirements, and responsibilities. That leads to vehement disagreements.

I agree 100%.