|
> But once your exposure gets bigger, you suddenly enter different waters. I fundamentally disagree with this. Just because my exposure has gotten larger (possibly through no action of my own), it doesn't magically give me more resources, more free time, more motivation, a team of developers, etc. If people (or companies) want to depend on a one-person open source project for something important to them, then they should pay to fund it, either by giving that developer money directly, or by hiring people in-house to contribute to that project. (Not doing so is just foolish and risky on the company's part, too: depending solely on an unpaid volunteer for an important part of your infrastructure is not a winning move.) Also consider that more users generally means less free time for developing, and more time handling bug reports and support issues. If an open source project grows, it's absolutely critical for users to step up and pitch in, either with their own skills, or with monetary resources that can help the maintainer (who might have a day job) focus more on the project. Maintainers do have a responsibility to decide what they want their level of involvement to be, though, and to communicate that. Potential users should have the information they need to decide if the project they want to depend on is well-supported and sustainable. They have no right to demand that the maintainer change their approach or level of involvement, however. > But once you got into the limelight with your project and other people started depending on it, every misstep suddenly becomes a jackass move. I really dislike the lack of charitable interpretation given here, and this just contributes to the "entitled user" image. The unpaid maintainer of an open source project does not owe anyone anything. Full stop. Users are responsible for their dependencies. I'll repeat that: users are responsible for their dependencies. If they are going to take on a dependency for that's given away for free and not do their due diligence to make sure it is reliably and sustainably developed, that's on them. If they're not happy with the maintainership and want to use it anyway, that's on them. Users do not get to tell unpaid maintainers how to maintain their software. If they want to be helpful and constructive, that's great, but anything less is rude and unwanted. |
> I fundamentally disagree with this.
Don't get angry with me over this. I'm just the messenger
> I really dislike the lack of charitable interpretation given here, and this just contributes to the "entitled user" image.
Again, I'm just explaining to you how the world is not how I want the world to be. So don't call me entitled! Just read my posts maybe?