

Hug an OSS Developer or just don't be a dick  - huntern
http://www.theautomatedtester.co.uk/blog/2011/hug-an-oss-developer-or-dont-be-a-dick.html

======
robflynn
I spent a good many years managing and developing a popular open source
project.

While most of our users were/are good individuals, there were certainly some
nasty ones in the bunch. I remember being cursed at many a time simply for
politely refusing to implement whatever random feature a user requested.

If a bug were to come up in the software, there were times where threats
and/or demands were made that I fix the bug or modify something to the user's
liking. (Never physical threats as far as I can recall, but still unwarranted
aggression.) They absolutely refused to believe that I didn't directly "owe"
them anything. It was a bizarre entitlement feeling some of the users had.
It's not like I worked on the project for a living. I had a day job as well.

I finally started transitioning away from the project and handing it off to
someone else when I started getting phone calls at my home. A user managed to
track down my cell phone number and started calling me in the middle of the
night (3am - 4am.) He wanted to talk to me about his "ideas" that I should
implement in the code.

That's not to say all of our users were jerks. In fact, it was a very small
minority. Out of the hundreds of thousands of users we had, only a handful
were dicks. Unfortunately, some took it to creepy levels.

On the other hand, many warm e-mails were received and even on occasion cases
of beer for our coding efforts. I still hold a lot of fond memories of that
time. Hell, even the legal issues were a learning experience, though the
majority of that occurred around the time I was bowing out.

I really don't even know what point I'm trying to make here. I just wanted to
share a few brief stories.

`Tis a strange world.

~~~
ComputerGuru
Off topic: I had a intermittent crashing bug in libpurple in the XMPP file
transfer code. I filed a bug and was more than willing to help patch it
myself, but gosh, the development environment to debug Pidgin on Windows or
Mac is really something! I just couldn't get it set up to debug properly and
the bug is still open 2 or 3 years later :(

~~~
robflynn
I remember when we first started doing windows builds. I had a guy called
Herman (I think? I knew him by that name anyway) handle the builds. I didn't
always have easy access to a windows machine and it was a pain getting
mingw/cygwin going with all the appropriate libraries installed in the correct
places.

Though I am no longer really associated with the project, I am curious what
the bug is/was. If you like, fire off an email to me off-site and send a link
to the report or fill me in. You can find my e-mail in my profile.

------
zdw
If you find a problem with open source code and you can't fix it and provide a
good patch, at least identify where in the code is at fault.

If you can't find the fault, provide a fully formed test case that shows the
problem.

If you can't create a test case, be polite and extremely specific when
reporting the bug.

If you can't be polite... well the bug is probably less of a problem than your
attitude.

~~~
bkor
Within the project I help out in, I spend a lot of time replying to people,
trying to change their attitude. This usually helps. In the extreme cases it
doesn't, I have a big hammer to wield (sysadmin).

If you're consistently (honestly) well-intended and nice, you'll see that it
changes peoples attitude. Further, more people will stick around because they
like the friendly atmosphere.

However, it has to be managed constantly. I want everyone to be nice, no
matter if they're a developer who has worked on the project for 5+ years, or
just a random person who saw a crash. Though, long time developer gets a bit
more leeway than a new person.

If someone writes a really good rant or troll, I only want to see nice
replies. Fortunately, this is usually what happens. Doesn't also make sense to
get harsh or angry; just becomes a long thread because emotions get heated and
people who are angry always seems to have a lot of time to vent.

Trying to make everyone be nice takes a lot of effort. Usually people do mean
well, it is just that they either word it wrongly, culture (Germans :P), or
that they're used to harsh communities elsewhere. It takes quite some effort
to always respond in the best way, and not behave the same way back.

I'm sort of like a BOFH. Having sysadmin abilities means that I could be a
behaving way too radically and there is nobody to easily say otherwise (could
moderate them, remove their privs, etc).

I do above for the good of the project. Cannot code in the way the developers
do and try to help out in this way.

One big problem is cultural differences. Some people expect really friendly
and long language and see anything else as harsh; eventhough it is not
intended that way (Northern Europe:P). E.g. a "No" as an answer to a long
paragraph.

------
JangoSteve
I have found that most people don't even realize they're being dicks when
submitting bug reports or feature suggestions for OSS. I recent wrote an
article about this phenomenon and what to do about it. [1]

For example, it can be demeaning to OSS developers who have spent much of
their time (often unpaid) to build this software for you to use, when you open
your bug report with the attitude that it must be broken simply because it
doesn't do what you want it to do.

I prefer to start every conversation (bug report, etc), not with the purpose
of fixing something that's broken, but to expand the both project's
applicability and the community's understanding of the project. For example,
consider

    
    
        This software is broken on IE.
    

vs

    
    
        Can we make this software work in IE?
    

You're not starting a conversation because the software is broken in IE,
you're starting it because it's an opportunity to make it applicable to the IE
use-case.

This is also why I encourage everyone who's having trouble with any of my
projects to __open an issue ticket __. I often get emails or tweets from
people asking for help with some problem, and the first thing I tell them is,
open a ticket. Their aversion to opening a ticket is because they're not sure
if it's an issue with the software, or if they're just doing it wrong. But I
say it's ticket-worthy either way, because a ticket isn't made to fix broken
software, it's made to increase the project's applicability _and the
community's understanding of the software_. If you're having the problem,
chances are someone else is or will have that same problem, and now they can
find the solution.

~~~
tedunangst
_the attitude that it must be broken simply because it doesn't do what you
want it to do_

For better or worse, I get snippy when something doesn't work that I was told
would work. Like when the included examples don't work or the documentation is
wrong. Then I'm not angry because I didn't get the free pony I wanted, I'm
angry because you _lied_ to me.

~~~
JangoSteve
I understand it can be frustrating, but saying that the OSS developer "lied"
to you is exactly the wrong kind of attitude I'm talking about.

Underlying libraries break, people have weirdly configured environments,
browsers ship with new unexpected updates. There are a million legitimate
reasons that things don't work at any given moment (yes, even the examples in
documentation). Furthermore, the documentation often takes as much time and
effort as the code itself, so it's entirely possible that the developer just
hasn't had a chance to update the docs yet.

At the time you encounter your problem, you have no way of knowing why it's
not behaving as you'd expect, or what led to such a circumstance. Having an
attitude when submitting a ticket (as if the developer lied to you) is
entirely counter-productive to finding a solution, even if you're right.

------
philbo
I've contributed to a few small open-source projects myself in the past and
can only remember polite, well-mannered people in the associated communities.
However I think the key point is that those were very small projects, with
equally small communities.

When you get to the Mozilla / Selenium level of popularity discussed in the
post, it must be a near-certainty that you will also attract your fair share
of uninformed and/or plain rude people posting bug reports and comments. In
that sense, it can be viewed as a good thing: your project is a success,
otherwise it wouldn't be attracting all the bad vibes!

------
illumen
No, people should not be mean or rude to developers - or anyone really.

However, Mozilla is getting paid for the software. Just because it is open
source, does not mean that people don't get paid.

Mozilla takes money for their software in the form of donations. So some users
are actually paying directly to Mozilla.

Also, Mozilla makes most of its money by selling private information to Google
(searches etc). Users are paying through giving up some of their privacy, by
doing searches through Firefox, and google.

Also, the Mozilla foundation is a non profit organisation which means all the
US tax payers give it money indirectly through government support. If it was a
company, then it would not get certain privileged treatment.

Finally users contribute to OSS through at least testing products - if not in
documentation and many other ways.

Anyway, my point is that you can't really use the excuse that it's free to the
users, so they can't expect anything - because it certainly isn't entirely
free.

People should try and not be rude - on either the developers side or the users
side. I've seen a bunch of rants from Mozilla people about this, so I think
their community needs work. They should consider watching how their developers
communicate with people as well. Calling people 'dicks' and such is pretty
harsh. They should also consider making Bugzilla nicer. Things like WONTFIX,
and other communications with bug reporters can really make people angry, and
can make Mozilla come across as being rude too.

~~~
khuey
I'm not even sure how to respond to the "selling private information to
Google" bit. If you think choosing a default search engine equates to selling
private information I guess that's cool. I don't agree, and I don't think many
(or any) people who work on Mozilla do, and we're generally a pretty privacy
concerned group.

The Mozilla Corporation pays taxes on its profits (including its business
deals with Google) like any other US company. There's no special "privileged
treatment" on the business deals.

(Disclosure: I work for the Mozilla Corporation)

~~~
illumen
hi,

my main point over all is that both parties should be nice, and improve their
communication to make the community a nicer place. It's not just the users
that are 'dicks', and they should stop being 'dicks'. Other things can be done
to make the community nicer on both sides.

Concerning the private searches part that you take issue with... My main point
was that Mozilla gets money from the users indirectly (and directly), so the
argument that users are not paying so can not expect anything is silly.

Mozilla also gets money from Google "for click-throughs on ads placed on the
ensuing search results pages", not just the default search engine bit.

You're right that people can argue over what the search arrangement with
Google should be called. The private searches which people type into Firefox
go to Google. Google pays money to Mozilla for this. It reminds me of when
people try to work around liquor laws by making up some 'work around'. For
example people sell tickets which can then be used to buy alcohol... and
because you're not directly selling people the alcohol people think that is
ok. But really, the laws still say you can't do that clever little ruse. Now,
people don't have to agree on this, but I'm pretty sure many people would
think of it as their information being sold to a corporation if they knew that
arrangement was in place. I doubt most users of Firefox realise that google
pays mozilla for the search arrangement though. We don't need to agree on
this, or that the world is flat either, but I think it is the case.

To your second issue you raised, "The Mozilla Corporation (abbreviated MoCo)
is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation". --
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation> The Mozilla Foundation is a
non profit, as such gets special treatment. The government, and tax payers
give non profits a break because they are contributing something good to the
community - like all the good stuff Mozilla does.

cheers,

[edit: removed thing about google getting sent url bar entries in ff]

~~~
bzbarsky
Oh, and as regards "special treatment"... what sort? The Mozilla Foundation
has very little revenue of its own. All revenue coming via the Mozilla
Corporation is handled like any other revenue from any other corporation for
tax purposes and the like

Either you're a bit confused about what it means to be a "non profit", or I'd
really like to see a clear explanation of what sorts of special treatment you
think Mozilla is getting here.

(Disclosure: I too work for the Mozilla Corporation, though I've been
contributing to the project for a lot longer than I've been employed.)

~~~
illumen
Here it explains what privileges non profits get:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization>

Mozilla Foundation owns Mozilla Corporation, and Mozilla Foundation is a non
profit. Non profits get special privileges that companies do not get - and
that is all I am talking about, I'm not concerned about it.

Mozilla Foundation and Subsidiary declared $61,501,145 Royalties from search
in the 2006 Auditors report.

I mention this, to rebut the point that users are not contributing anything to
mozilla - therefore they can't expect anything. Disregarding other ways users
contribute to mozilla (donations, testing, etc), this is one way everyone is
contributing to mozilla foundation (or at least the people who live in
countries where mozilla has foundations).

Even if users were not paying anything, I still think they have rights in open
source communities and should not just be ignored or mistreated just because
they don't happen to pay money to license the software.

~~~
bzbarsky
> Here it explains what privileges non profits get: >
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization>

Yes, I'm well aware of that. The point is that the privileges nonprofits get
are largely about not having to pay taxes on revenue, but the Mozilla
Foundation has no revenue to start with, so there would be no tax to pay in
any case.

The main "privilege" the Mozilla Foundation gets, as far as I can see, is that
people who donate money to it can claim that as a tax deduction on their
income tax return.

This is for the US; I have no idea whether Mozilla has any sort of nonprofit
presence in other jurisdictions, nor what the laws are there regarding
nonprofits.

Again, can you point to any specific privileges that you're concerned with
that Mozilla is getting, instead of handwaving? I see a privilege that people
giving money to Mozilla get, is all.

~~~
illumen
I'm not concerned with Mozilla being non profit.

Here are some advantages of non profits:
[http://grantspace.org/Tools/Knowledge-Base/Nonprofit-
Managem...](http://grantspace.org/Tools/Knowledge-Base/Nonprofit-
Management/Establishment/Pros-and-cons)

In exchange for being a non profit, the government gives non profits these
advantages, and that relates to the public supporting the non-profit Mozilla
Foundation.

Yeah, there are other mozilla foundations in other countries. There's some
listed on the mozilla foundation wikipedia page.

I feel a little trolled, and have other things to do, and I also think this
conversation is going nowhere - so am not responding any further.

~~~
bzbarsky
So the advantages you describe for non-profits are exactly the same as for any
limited-liability corporation, except for the tax-free revenue bit. And the
revenue Mozilla gets is in fact taxed, since it's revenue of a for-profit
corporation.

_You_'re feeling trolled? Pardon me, but as far as I can tell you're doing the
trolling....

------
thedjpetersen
I agree with <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3295720> . It would be nice
to be in a world where people treated each other well. I have seen the inverse
as well though, some person politely pointing out a deficiency in an open
source project and getting derided by a maintainer. Reminds me of this HN
post: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2267885> .

------
christkv
The best way I have found is to not look at the child and not talk to the
child.

------
jamesu
To me an open source project is 1% about the code and 99% about the community.
Without a good community, you might as well not bother open sourcing the code.

~~~
gbog
I don't know how far this is true. I just checked Vim, which for me seem to be
written mostly by one person (but I may be wrong here). Anyway, I'm quite sure
there are some useful open source project which don't have a big community of
developers. FSlint is one I use sometime.

------
JoeAltmaier
...or try not to get into the situation where your financial/employment status
is in the hands of volunteers. (Don't use OS for important things that require
diligent support)

~~~
wladimir
Or pay the developers for "diligent support". Many open source projects offer
some kind of paid support or commercial license. A lot of people seem to
expect fully fledged support for free, and that's pretty crazy.

If you want "free support" you either need to be able to fix it yourself or
get on good terms with the developer. In any case, don't be a dick.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Well said. So if its mission-critical, expect to take support in-house or pay
for it. Or don't use it.

Is there some clearinghouse of OSS support suppliers?

~~~
gruuk
> So if its mission-critical, expect to take support in-house or pay for it

Pretty much true of any software, proprietary or not; only a blind optimist or
someone with deep pockets will use a mission-critical piece of software
without developing in-house expertise. Also, free online resources are
available for both. We use a mix of proprietary and OSS products here and
we've found that paid support is somewhat better for proprietary (easier to
get, though quality varies extensively), but free support is typically better
for OSS products.

Still, the main benefits of OSS have little to do with free support, though it
is a nice bonus. I've thanked many developers for their time spent not only
creating a program/system I use, but also for supporting it. Especially for
small projects, sending a few good words and a few bucks (when you can afford
to) shows the devs their efforts are appreciated.

