This was probably near the breaking point before, it just needed an idiot to catalyze.

I had a similar emotional outburst where after contributing hundreds of hours to Stack Overflow, when I asked a question of my own, instead of answering an objective yes/no question people just argued with me in the comments about why I could possibly want to do whatever prompted me to ask my question. I delete my account and quit ever contributing to that site right then and there. I think I was just looking for an out and it was ultimately a good thing.

No idea if this is the case here, but I hope the author sticks with this decision. Although, looking at https://github.com/nvim-treesitter/nvim-treesitter/graphs/co... , it doesn't look like he started this project, so I'm not sure it's his place to archive it.

▲

tasuki a day ago | parent | next [-]

> doesn't look like he started this project, so I'm not sure it's his place to archive it.

This is a very valid point. It indeed looks like it was done in affect rather than after careful discussion with the (at least) ten members of the nvim-treesitter org.

	▲	martin-t 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is a common issue with tooling used by open source. Either you alone own the repo but then you're a single point of failure. Or you give those perms to others but then any one of them can abuse it (or get hacked). I'd like to see tooling which requires consensus or voting to make certain changes such as archiving a repo or publishing a new release.

▲

martin-t 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you had the option to also delete all your contributions to the side, would you have done it?

If you had the option to exclude only certain people (e.g. those who argues with you) from seeing/using your contributions, would you have done it instead of deleting your account?

I am asking because I've too been burned and it's very commonly how an open source contributor's journey ends. So I've been toying with the idea that contributors should be able to exclude certain people or perhaps even groups of people from using their work.

Basically "I give away my work for free for anyone to use and build upon but if you don't appreciate it, if you treat me like shit, if you do any of X Y Z which hurts me or other people, then you're no longer allowed to use it".

▲

em-bee 19 hours ago | parent [-]

i understand the sentiment, but the nature of FOSS is that i can't really prevent anyone from using it. i'd have to police it, and that would just lead to more misery.

i too contributed to stackoverflow and eventually stopped because it didn't feel worth the effort. i never asked a question though, so i didn't have the experience GP made, but i doubt i would want to delete everything, at least not without moving all my answers to another location.

once or twice when searching for the solution to a specific problem i was lead to a stackoverflow question and had to discover that the answer that solved my problem was my own from a decade earlier. so i too benefit from posting answers. deleting them would reduce that benefit.

	▲	martin-t 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> the nature of FOSS is that i can't really prevent anyone from using it That's my point - maybe FOSS isn't the absolute good we've been lead to believe. It was a response to locked down proprietary software which increasingly became hostile to its users. And it is (from a user's perspective) better that that for sure. But from a dev perspective, it's not as good as it could be. > my answers Exactly, those are your answers, your work. We've spent a lot of our limited time working for other people's benefit because we believed in it or sometimes because it was fun. But ultimately, it's becoming clear other people don't care and will throw us under the bus as soon as we're no longer useful. And then there's people who are just looking for a way to take advantage of us. And I want to exclude both from benefiting from my work. We should strive to find methods to make good, productive, pro-social people to benefit while keeping anyone who wants to exploit us away.