From your description I expected a pile of legalese, but in reading it... I don't see "passive-aggressive" I see simple etiquette guidelines that shouldn't have to be said, but... clearly do.
Often users screaming "I won't use [your project] if you don't fix [my whim]!"** actually does get some traction. So saying explicitly in the readme that that is rude and won't be allowed seems ... healthy.
Notably, because it's just one dude's passion project, not a corporate-backed such-n-such, we don't want him resenting ever creating it, right?
** (or, to wit, "if you don't change your README I wouldn't want to use this." lol)
It's totally reasonable, and is also the exact sort of guidelines I would want to establish if I were the maintainer of an open-source project.
However, I think it's amusing that the website lists all of these cool reasons why someone should use Web Origami, and then the repo more-or-less says "here's all of these rules you should abide by if you want to even CONSIDER using this project". One page is meant to draw users in, the other to fend them off.
i can only find two rules: treat the developer and his time with respect, and say hello before filing a bug[*]. the rest are statements to tell everyone what they can expect, nothing that they actively need to do.
[*] i disagree with "Bugs are a lousy way to say hello". though i think i know where the developer comes from, but if i am going to make a contribution, i'll just do that, and maybe start the contribution with a short introduction, but i am not going to say hello until i actually have something to contribute. i agree with everything else though, and expecially with all the things i should expect if i contribute something.
One page is meant to draw users in, the other to fend them off
i'd say it's meant to draw in friendly users and fend off the unfriendly ones. if you have participated in other projects you should understand why some developers feel that this is necessary.
The best analogy for the feeling I got when reading this is visiting someone at his house and the first thing he says is „BTW, don’t take any of my stuff, that’s stealing!“. Sure, but can I take of my shoes first?
If it’s in a CodeOfConduct.md I get it but having it be more than half of the readme feels a bit weird.
Which is it? So problematic that you wouldn't use it even if it were exactly the tool you needed, or "a bit weird".
I agree, it's a bit weird. So is putting a lot of effort into a project that nobody is asking for and you'll give it away for free. There are many people in my life that are neurodivergent and some situations cost more than they are worth. I have had several projects I thought were good candidates for open source, but the idea of dealing with the "anonymous a-hole" has been a show-stopper for me. I appreciate that the authors of this project seem to have similar concerns, but have overcome them by creating a social contract. I believe that it's entire goal is to turn people away whose interactions may be too much for the maintainers. Good.
If reading those rules and abiding by them is too much for you, then just turn around and walk away. That's the intention and goal. They're doing you a favor, letting you know that your brand of weird is not compatible with their brand of weird. They don't have to make space for everyone in their little project, and there might not be space for you there, and that's OK.
> Which is it? So problematic that you wouldn't use it even if it were exactly the tool you needed, or "a bit weird".
Well, it’s weird enough that I wouldn’t use the project unless it’s the only thing available (but there are other SSGs) or if an employer paid me for it (I don’t really care then if the project is stable, that’s my employers problem).
> If reading those rules and abiding by them is too much for you, then just turn around and walk away. That's the intention and goal. They're doing you a favor, letting you know that your brand of weird is not compatible with their brand of weird. They don't have to make space for everyone in their little project, and there might not be space for you there, and that's OK.
I don’t have a problem with the rules themselves, to be clear. My problem is the presentation. It’s also not a big problem to me, I’ll just use something else and move on. That’s fine.
Great – that is exactly how the author wants to be treated. They have set some clear boundaries about working with random internet people like us, and it’s our responsibility to respect those boundaries.
