[otterley]

Maintaining an open-source software project is frequently a hobby that’s performed out of a labor of love. There’s no duty owed to anyone, nor should one be implied by past behavior. The open-source community is not a slave trade.

[naasking]

Hence why I said "voluntarily".

[otterley]

I don't see how that changes anything (and you didn't say "voluntarily"). Volunteering does not create a duty. One can volunteer to pick up litter and give up halfway through; the only consequence would be disappointment.

[naasking]

> Volunteering does not create a duty.

Volunteering to maintain a project literally does create entail accepting duties, that's what taking on the role of maintainer entails. They are of course free to give up that role at any time, but those duties exist while that role has been adopted.

[otterley]

Let's suppose for the sake of the argument that while you are a volunteer, you take on some duty. What is the nature of that duty? And how do we enforce the execution of said duty? What are the consequences of it not being performed?

You can't really say someone has a "duty" without also implying that they have a "responsibility," and thus liability if they fail to execute those duties properly. I don't see how this fits at all for a volunteer. Very few people are going to volunteer for no pay if they're taking on a risk of liability.

Maybe you mean a civic duty? That would make somewhat more sense, but the problem is that there’s no objective standard against which to test performance. It’s completely subjective and will be forever argued—much like this thread. :-)