[brightlancer]

The original question was polite and gave his reason for asking.

The developer's response was not helpful and a bit snarky.

A better response? "No, I don't have a target date; this is X on my priority list, after my paying work. If your company is willing to contract me for support, I can prioritize the release. Email me if you'd like to do that."

Companies pay for software all the time. Just make it easy for them to do so (IIRC that was posted on HN a little bit ago) and direct folks to that if they need priority support.

Otherwise, it can appear as if the developer has a "first one's free" mentality, where the user is now dependent upon broken software and the developer wants to charge for the fix.

"But the corporate guy's e-mail was rude and aggressive!" Yes, but his original questions was not; it was mhils who first responded like a jerk.

[pkulak]

Ah yes, because what I want to infest my personal hobby projects is all the corporate bullshit speak that I'm forced to deal with from 9-5. If IBM ever starts monetizing a project of mine, that's fine, but if they try to waste even 12 seconds of my time reading an issue, I'm pretty sure I'll respond in whatever way sparks joy.

[WastingMyTime89]

> it was mhils who first responded like a jerk.

What?!!

Mhils answered happy to setup a support contract if you need timely release while pointing to his email. Nothing in his answer is out of line. I think you need to seriously reset your expectations if you think that answer from someone providing free labour is in any way wrong.

[fogof]

What rubs me the wrong way about the mhils Github response is that it fails to answer the question that the commenter asked: Is there or is there not a target date for the next release (and if so, what is it)? It's fine to charge money to move the date up, but it seems like if you are going to make that offer, you should try to tell the person how much time they would actually be buying.

[WastingMyTime89]

> What rubs me the wrong way about the mhils Github response is that it fails to answer the question that the commenter asked: Is there or is there not a target date for the next release (and if so, what is it)?

Why exactly do you expect him to answer that? It’s not like he is working for the guy. He can do whatever he wants.

Reading this discussion I’m starting to understand why so many open source maintainers end up calling it quit.

[nucleardog]

Yeah, back to what my grandma would say “if you don’t have anything nice to say…”.

Either…

This is something I, as someone spending some time on a passion or hobby project, don’t want to deal with and I’ll just ignore it.

Or

It’s a business transaction and I’ll at least try and explain what services I can provide, not just “lol pay me”. “We don’t have a release schedule. Except in the case of actual critical vulnerabilities making our users vulnerable, releases are tagged when we have enough functional changes to warrant them. If you would like to get in touch to discuss a support contract and us tagging a release just for you and your customers you can contact me at X.”

Refusing to engage on the question or how you can work together and just saying “lol pay me” definitely comes across as “fuck off” to me. And if that was the intent… better to not say anything at all.

[sam_lowry_]

He explained it already: the requested change is purely for regulatory purposes and has no functional value. He would release once enough functional changes accumulate.

[mcpackieh]

I agree with you except for this part:

> it was mhils who first responded like a jerk.

mhil's response was polite and reasonable. The :-) could possibly be interpreted as antagonistic, but in absence of other clear antagonism, I wouldn't assume it was meant that way even if it might have been. The email is where this exchange went off the rails, everything prior to the email was fine.

[ncallaway]

> Otherwise, it can appear as if the developer has a "first one's free" mentality, where the user is now dependent upon broken software and the developer wants to charge for the fix.

I would be willing to be the original “first one’s free” license came with an explicit disclaimer that the software was provided “AS IS”, without any warranty implied or explicit.

So, it seems like it would be on the company for deciding to use the software in a critical way, without having a plan for support.

They should have read the contract.

[_Algernon_]

I'd argue that weaponizing politeness with the explicit intent to exploit someone's free labor -- especially when you stand to gain monetary value -- is in and of itself "jerkish behavior".

[wefarrell]

Saying they “need some kind of target date” is not polite, it sounds a lot like a demand.

[ufmace]

I agree that the response is a bit snarky and escalates the situation. However, unpaid open-source project maintainers aren't obligated to be scrupulously polite at all times no matter what. If you want professional corporate interactions, then pay professional corporate prices.

I'm also sympathetic to not wanting to commit to a specific release schedule for an open-source free time project, with implied consequences if it isn't met.

[brightlancer]

> However, unpaid open-source project maintainers aren't obligated to be scrupulously polite at all times no matter what. If you want professional corporate interactions, then pay professional corporate prices.

It would have cost mhils nothing to be polite and the idea that "if you want polite then pay for it" justifies abusive behavior.

I've personally seen far too many co-workers state that they're paid for their technical skill rather than to be polite, or even that they're not paid _enough_ to be polite.

mhils ITA.

[atoav]

The maintainer didn't answer the question. But I don't think it was snarky. If you want a problem solved in an open source project you (and your financially very solvent customers) rely on the minimum would be to offer some way you can help or provide resources.

[wg0]

Totally agree, but the other side in response might label this whole situation as ransomeware, extortion etc. I mean "might", we can't be sure.

[CBarkleyU]

Is this some kind of next level sarcarsm that I'm not getting? The "other side" literally implied that the developers response better not have been a "thinly veiled extortion attempt". Not really sure how a developer of an open source project can extort IBM, but yknow...

[wg0]

No it is not sarcasm. It is a possible outcome of an interaction where the commercial entity needlessly accuses of extortion and such. Might happen.

[CBarkleyU]

Still not sure what you mean by "might happen". It literally did happen, check out the second screenshot.