[autarch]

Instead of "sucks", how about any of these:

* My Frustrations with Hugo's Documentation

* How Hugo's Documentation Confuses Me and How to Improve It

* Why I Don't Like Hugo's Documentation

The key thing I've done here in the first three is to reframe the criticism as an _opinion_ ("I", "me", "my") rather than an absolute ("it sucks").

I don't think it's too much to ask people to state their opinions _as opinions_ in cases where you know in advance that said opinion may lead to hurt feelings. These titles might _still_ lead to hurt feelings, but I think they're less likely to do so, and if they do then they will hurt less.

[systemvoltage]

Those are all great suggestions and that’s what I would use.

However, if you look under the facade, when talking to your colleagues and with people around you, “sucks” is very much a common, daily word.

This is the way I look at it. Sure, it’s not professional. But, the author is not trying to be professional I suppose. I am not going to debate it’s appropriateness.

I want to be clear, the point I’m debating is not about “sucks” per se, but any general criticism. Whenever you need disclaimers, it could mean two things 1) Rude or unacceptable title 2) Society expects unreasonable conformity and adherence to a particular language, set of values, etc.

In the case 2), we had a huge debate about “master vs main” branch. There are many examples.

We’d be better off dialing down the conformity and be more inclusive. Check in deeper about intentions and faith, than the facade of language. If the author used the language you suggested, but had bad intentions, that’s a bigger problem.

[autarch]

I don't think the issue is being professional or not. If the author's goal is to convince people who work on Hugo to improve the docs, then it's best to avoid triggering a defensive emotional reaction. The title as it stands will likely trigger hurt feelings, which is usually followed by being defensive or ignoring the substance of the criticism. That's simply unproductive.

[systemvoltage]

The only thing I agree here is that better language wouldn't hurt. I don't think most people get "triggered". That's a vocal minority perpetuating a culture demanding a sort of conformity against their definition of "micro-aggressions" and "triggers" with no regards to a larger consultation with the society.

[autarch]

I didn't use the words "triggered" or "micro-aggressions", so what exactly are you quoting?

Saying "your project sucks" or "your project docs suck" is not a _micro_-aggression, it's a macro-aggression, or as I prefer, being a jerk. I think most people would react negatively to that sort of statement.

[corobo]

It's a shame we can't peek into alternate universes to prove/disprove but I have to imagine those titles wouldn't have nearly as many upvotes

[autarch]

You're probably right, but I think not being a jerk should trump HN upvotes.

[dahdum]

As written it seems to me the intent of the article is to publicly shame the open source devs who contribute their time and effort into doing more work for free.

It's typical open source toxicity.

[chipotle_coyote]

This makes me think of the old programmer joke that's something like, "There's no documentation. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand."

In project like Hugo that has no "user interface" to speak of, tools for which you can't reasonably be expected to just look at the UI screens and figure things out if they're nicely done because there are no UI screens to look at, the documentation is the user interface. Full stop.

The article lays out exactly what its author doesn't like about the documentation and makes suggestions for improvement. The "your documentation sucks" title is the harshest thing about it, and if it was truly a rant I could see getting prickly about it, but it absolutely is not. This is constructive criticism. And that's just as important for an open source project as it is for any other project.

I get bristling at the "if you can't stand having your suggestions torn apart, then don't contribute to open source" weird macho mindset some projects have historically have. Yes, it's toxic. But "if your suggestion is not sufficiently deferential, away with you" goes too far in the other direction.