[damiangostomski]

Apologies if it came across as if I was posting that as a rant. It was published with good intentions. I'd intentionally ommited the name of the project, as I didn't want them to come off as "the bad guys" in all this, so some of the points may seem a bit cryptic without that information, but to answer your points:

The project already has a decent number of contributers and pull requests merged into the core. As for do they need to be discussed elsewhere first, possibly, but I've been involved in discussions on their forums and tried contacting them regarding other contributions and have not been made aware of them. Additionally, they could mention this in the pull requests comments.

Regarding the response time, it all depends on the cirtcumstances. I'm not suggesting you can never have a break, but if other features are being commited, and other pull requests are being merged in that time, then it suggests the project is actively being developed.

I admit that my contribution wasn't ground breaking, but more of a nice to have for the end users, but it's not unheard of to have seen micro contributions. For example, a spelling mistake or changing some micro copy is rarely of critical importance, but they can still get approved.

I'm aware of some of the pressures on sole developers of open source projects, as I've been in that situation as well, and I appreciate that there are often more important factors for them, but in that case, would you not state that you no longer maintain something or offer support? Or is that my high expectation again?

In hindsight, calling them "commandments" was a bit strong, would be interesting to see what others think.

[dalke]

You wrote that this was the first time you had ever made any contributions to a project. You therefore have no idea of what is expected for this situation. You state that it wasn't what you expected. You haven't explained why what you expected is reasonable, vs. being the views of an irate snowflake.

You also omitted what you did, other than waiting, writing a blog post complaint about it, and linking to your own post from Hacker News. In it you characterized your viewpoints as something which should generally be applied to all projects, when it's mostly applicable to those which want to encourage participation by new people.

And yes, your term 'commandments' is very strong - you take on the persona of lawgiver when you use it.

A longer discussion of some of the issues is at http://producingoss.com/en/managing-volunteers.html .