So what? This website is just some man's collection of blogs, not a government registry funded by tax money. It does not seem to even take public donations. Why shouldn't its maintainer be allowed to exercise personal judgement in his curation efforts? Why does he have to justify putting one blog up there but not another any more than the New York Times need to justify publishing one article but not another?

It is weird how entitled people can get when it comes to things others create and distribute for free. The same seems to happen with open source software in general too. Somehow the ones who pay nothing, ask for the most.

> So what? This website is just some man's collection of blogs, not a government registry funded by tax money. It does not seem to even take public donations. Why shouldn't its maintainer be allowed to exercise personal judgement in his curation efforts?

Unnecessarily aggressive response from you given that you are addressing positions I never actually took. Of course the maintainer is entitled to exercise personal judgement about what gets included. When did I say anything othrwise?

What I am saying is that, as a user, it is frustrating to spend time putting together submissions and then hear absolutely nothing back. I am not demanding special treatment, just a basic acknowledgement or a brief explanation when something is rejected. Expecting that level of courtesy when you interact with a project does not strike me as unreasonable. If that is considered entitlement, then yes, I suppose I do expect basic courtesy from people I engage with.

All I am asking is whether anyone might be interested in building something more community-ish, where decisions do not rest entirely with one individual. If someone creates that, I am happy to support it with my time and contributions. That is the only point I am making.