[highlysyntropic]

particularly responding to the authors story about all the disappointment that open source involves.

open source maintainers this is a public service announcement. You're killing yourselves by being too nice. Don't be afraid to embrace your inner despot because really that's what you are when you are maintainer over a project. you need to be sort of a rougher, less experienced than, less polished version of Linus's or Guido's benevolent dictator for life. if you don't like something just shut it down if you don't like an issue just close it if you don't like a PR just close it if you don't like a request just deny it.

if this is starting to rub off on you in a good way and you're liking what I'm saying well then just double down and do it. embrace your inner despot. it's okay. if you're still sitting on the fence let me bring you to the good side with a little bit of advice, if you need to have it sold you like this. That's fine. it's not about you. keeping you in the best mental health possible, taking care of you is really about taking care of the project and all the people involved in it. you need to come first so that the project survives and can thrive. so uncomfortable as it may be to embrace your inner despot that's the best way to secure your own mental health.

clear boundaries. unhesitating expression of what you want to do. no apologies.

they want to fork it? not your problem. stick a fork in it.

you don't like the way someone's behaving? block them.

you can choose to make this a great experience for you I believe. you just need the discipline to stick to that path. at every branch in the road choose this: what you want to do and only what you want to do. no compromises. That's the discipline you need to practice. if a project that used to be fun and give you a whole set of positive emotions, opens up, that should really only increase the positivity for you once you share it with others. I believe if you picked the right path by embracing your inner despot you can do that. you end up with a lot of people expressing their negative emotions, but you know what? who cares. their feelings are not your responsibility. it's not your problem.

be a despot. you'll like it. and it might be the only chance you have to do that. and I might be the way to save your mental health and your project.

and maybe just maybe if you be a despot the community will change. people who support you will gather around you and protect you once they see that strength which is inspiring. this drink that you stick to your principles and your vision. and maybe just maybe if you're lucky there's no guarantee but maybe the community will start protecting you. and if they do well just don't get soft. keep being a despot because that's what you need to do that's your job. you created this thing it's your responsibility to keep it on the best possible that involves keeping yourself on the best path possible. you already know how to do that you just have to choose that at every little decision you have. if you're not ready to make a decision right now just aren't. delay it until you feel ready to do it.

good luck. end of message.

[TheDong]

If I were to be a despot, I wouldn't feel better, I would feel worse.

To quote the article, "I wanted to repay their effort with a thorough explanation about why I was turning them down, and doing that was itself exhausting" -- the author feels as if they need to do these things, and at the same time doing so is draining. Simply replying with "no, I'm not taking this" and closing it very well might make the author feel even worse because it's not like that contributor meant anything ill, it's not like they don't deserve an explanation... it's simply an imbalance that there's an order of magnitude more contributors than maintainers.

If the problems were clearly abusive people that could be blocked, the solution would be easy. Unfortunately, the feeling of "people care about this project, and I owe them respect, even if it's draining on me" isn't something nearly so easily solved.

If you want to program in the style you speak of, you wouldn't even publish the code in the first place. If the point of the code is as a hedonistic selfish art-form, it never needs to leave your computer. You can be a tyrant over your own code. However, if you decide you wish others to see your code, use it, or learn from it... well, you clearly have a desire that others will use it, and now you're stuck between feeling as if you need to do X in pursuit of that, and burning out.

Frankly, I'd rather have shared my code, and learnt the hell that results, than to never have shared my code at all.

[highlysyntropic]

Disagree. This is too compromising. You'll suffer.

Doesn't make sense. You say you'd feel worse being a despot, but say you'd have "learnt the hell" that results by compromising. Worse than hell?

Boundaries are not just for people you want block. It's for everybody. It's not about them. It's about what you want. It's what's good for you.

You choose your own experience pal, but the way I see it is, if you're feeling these things the author describes...that's not good for you.

I'm not trying to convince you. You've got to choose your own way. To me it's a clear choice. What's good for you needs to trump what's good for others, otherwise you'll hurt yourself. So, boundaries.

I understand if it's the first time you've encountered the concept. Or seen it so boldly applied. But...I think it's warranted. The magnitude of suffering of these OSS guys is staggering. And to my view, they do it to themselves by not saying no. That's all.

I am grateful you help me explore it more...but I found that everything you raised I'd already thought of, or was already covered by the approach I propose to it. Good chance to reinforce the idea tho.

[austinjp]

Horses for courses. Some people will respond better in one environment, others won't. There's no One True Way.

[highlysyntropic]

Not really tho. In this case, there really is a One True Way, here! If you're doing more than you want to, and what you don't want to, for other people, you're not gonna enjoy it. Going beyond your boundaries, and violating your own comfort and principles, it's not gonna be good for you. Should be obvious.

If people are asking you to do things, and you don't want to, just do what you want. I know it's hard to resist sometimes. But that's sort of why the discipline is essential.

Of course, there's also..."push out of your comfort zone" and "stretch to your limit" and "live at your edge"... but that's a whole different thing. Those things should be taken in small doses, for you for excitement and enjoyment, like extreme training or skydiving or whatever, at totally consensual choice by yourself. But that's not what we're talking about.

Sure some people choose self-punishment. But that doesn't mean it's good for them. People choose a lot of stuff, for long times, that aren't necessarily good for them. They complain about it. When they could have just said no. Humans.

[austinjp]

The behaviour described is entirely selfish. There's plenty of evidence that the opposite, selfless behaviour, is highly beneficial and can actually be enjoyable.

If you never compromise for the sake of others you'll find yourself lonely and disliked.

There's no correct or incorrect here, no black and white. It's a big spectrum of grey. There is a balance, and it's hard to find.

[finnthehuman]

I can't agree more; say "no" early and often.

But there are cultural forces, even moreso in software development workplace culture, that make saying "no" hard/uncomfortable, and receiving a "no" feel like a bigger deal than it is.

It leads to the passive aggressiveness we're all familiar with, and that leads to a further slide, adding even more ambiguity to a rejection on the scale between "eh, maybe not right now" and "fuck off and die in a fire."

[highlysyntropic]

When it could have just been a simple no.

Then again, workplace is so different to OSS. It's different power dynamic. You're not a despot in the workplace if you're taking orders from above. In a real sense, when you work for someone, saying "no" to work tasks can mean getting fired.

But in another sense, you need to be able to talk to people in your workplace as peers (again different to the OSS situation we are talking about here), using NVC and what not, to make sure your needs are getting met, you feel heard, and you're healthy. A "no" as in "I'm not unwilling to do the work here" but "this doesn't work for me" and talking is necessary. A workplace where you can't say no does not sound very good.

Well, receiving a no that's a different story, and people need to get that it's their responsibility to get used to that, and it's okay to get a no.

Giving a no, that discipline is essential