[regenschutz]

It would be nice to have some context on this. I assume there was some drama regarding this "Cognitect" organisation named. As someone not involved with Clojure at, it's difficult to understand the context for why this post was created.

[doubleg]

This was the context back then: https://old.reddit.com/r/Clojure/comments/a0pjq9/rich_hickey...

I was reminded of this gist when reading the discussion about MinIO (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47000041).

[brazzy]

It was a reaction to the State of Clojure Survey 2018 (https://danielcompton.net/clojure-survey-2018) and discussions it sparked, in which there were depands for Clojure to change to a more community-driven development process.

[tom_]

Presumably this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46990729

[bee_rider]

There was also a thread about MinIO not being maintained anymore.

Hard to say without commentary. Maybe the poster here was influenced by multiple threads (I guess that seems likely, if it was just one thread they influenced them, they could have linked it in that thread).

[squigz]

TFA was posted in 2018; that drama is from the past few days. What connection is there?

[tom_]

But the link to the post was posted here just now! - which I'm assuming means something.

Both share a theme: the trials and tribulations of running an open source project, I suppose. Some contributions, one way or another, demand more of them than the maintainer might like. How do you deal with this? How do you set the boundaries? And so on.

[squigz]

I guess we were responding to different things: my reading of GP's question was why the gist was posted (back in 2018), not why it was shared today.

But indeed yes, I can see that connection.

[tom_]

I think you're right anyway. Re-reading the post with your comment in mind, I think it's clear enough that this was what was actually meant.

[pixl97]

You're not able to connect these two subjects?

A thesis on "don't abuse people in open source" and a bot "abusing people in open source"?