5 ms·

How does that deal with the problem of the "social contract" of having to maintain a software project and engage with its users? This seems more like a recipe

How does that deal with the problem of the "social contract" of having to maintain a software project and engage with its users? This seems more like a recipe for people who want to have an open source project but don't know what to do. I'd wager most open source developers do not have that problem. The more common problem is that you want to scratch another itch, but your last itch based projects are still keeping you busy because they started to scratch other people's backs.

pferde 7y ago
Exactly, the entire article reads like it's aimed at someone who heard that it's easier to land a well-paying job when you have some opensource projects listed on your resume, and has decided that they need such project, without really being interested in opensource very much.
regularfry 7y ago
Rather than release umpteen half-formed projects which will attract attention from a wide audience and be hard to support, release few well-defined projects which will both attract a narrower audience and be easier to support because they're in a better state.
Etheryte 7y ago
As someone who maintains a number of OSS projects, there is no social contract, it's a false dichotomy. There are many people who ask you to do free work for them (implement feature, review PR, discuss tickets), and asking is fine, but there is no implicit expectation that it would be The Right Thing for you to do it for them. If you find the work rewarding and have the time, great, you can do it if you so please. If not, the project is open source, they can pick it up and do it themselves. You haven't wronged anyone by saying "no" when asked to do work for nothing.
- splitbrain 7y ago
  I totally agree with you. The "social contract" was the premise the author started his article with. So not only did he not address his own premise, that premise is also wrong or a least worth discussing. shrug

pferde 7y ago

Exactly, the entire article reads like it's aimed at someone who heard that it's easier to land a well-paying job when you have some opensource projects listed on your resume, and has decided that they need such project, without really being interested in opensource very much.

regularfry 7y ago

Rather than release umpteen half-formed projects which will attract attention from a wide audience and be hard to support, release few well-defined projects which will both attract a narrower audience and be easier to support because they're in a better state.

Etheryte 7y ago

As someone who maintains a number of OSS projects, there is no social contract, it's a false dichotomy. There are many people who ask you to do free work for them (implement feature, review PR, discuss tickets), and asking is fine, but there is no implicit expectation that it would be The Right Thing for you to do it for them. If you find the work rewarding and have the time, great, you can do it if you so please. If not, the project is open source, they can pick it up and do it themselves. You haven't wronged anyone by saying "no" when asked to do work for nothing.

splitbrain 7y ago
I totally agree with you. The "social contract" was the premise the author started his article with. So not only did he not address his own premise, that premise is also wrong or a least worth discussing. shrug