On: The Phases of an Open Source Project Maintainer

[ericb]

Where are the stages for:

Realization that no one else will be contributing

Realization that programmers capable of really contributing probably think "filing a bug" was "contributing" and will bug you about timelines

Realization that people in paid jobs are pressuring you for bug fixes and feature timelines

Realization that being asked for free support from perfectly nice people has a mental cost, either in not providing it, or in providing it

Realization that open source zealots will judge you, and companies will avoid you, if you choose any other license, but at the same time, none of the problems above have solutions...

Feeling that your work provides charity to for-profit enterprises

Ennui/Abandonment: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

[Dayshine → ericb]

An alternative path:

Realization that while the project is very popular, it no longer interests you

Realization that due to your technical decisions, others can't simply fork and maintain it

Realization that indulging enthusiastic amateurs costs you 10x the time than simply implementing the feature yourself

Realization that thousands of users are suffering because your project is still by far the best choice even as it rots

Realization that no matter how well you document the tool, users will still ignore it and feel entitled to your direct support

Man, even making something popular sucks.

[cutemonster → Dayshine]

> indulging enthusiastic amateurs costs you 10x the time than ...

That means accepting contributions? Code reviewing, giving feedback, showing how to rewrite the PR in better ways?

[zzzeek → ericb]

nit: "filing a bug" is definitely contributing. A well written bug report is worth its weight in gold and can get you started with the test case to write for the fix. alternatively, a one liner pull request that you have no idea what it's "fixing" is useless garbage.

[ericb → zzzeek]

edit: I amended above slightly to more accurately describe the ennui.

[neffy → ericb]

I must admit I found the complaints about the license on my own project, which boiled down to you didn't make it freely available so we could steal it and use it for our own much better funded project without any cost, darkly amusing.

[peterangular → ericb]

This.

I've open-sourced a couple of tools throughout the years and all it's done is prove to me that I don't have the emotional energy to deal with it.

I still get emails that somehow both call me a piece of s&#t but still asking me to add features to a piece of software that's been irrelevant for 7+ years...

I found the same thing when I would play music publicly - I love music, I hate the audience. Writing a piece of software for other devs/SWEs to consume is often hell - we are a demanding, incredibly opinionated, pissy bunch of folks. (I say that last bit 110% self-aware that historically I'm part of the problem.)

[hyperpallium2 → ericb]

The contradiction at the heart of open source is that people like to be used.

[cutemonster → hyperpallium2]

Be used? You mean be useful?

[hyperpallium2 → cutemonster]

There's some wordplay in the comment.

The contradiction is that of course a dev doesn't want to be used (meaning: taken advantage of); yet, a dev wants their projects to be used - the dev wants to have "users".

[willismichael → ericb]

Wow, a lot of that is unnervingly familiar. I haven't quite experienced the last two yet, but I can see them happening.