He's not operating personally as the leader of a major project.

> He's not operating personally as the leader of a major project.

What? So let me get this straight--if my open source project which I have given away for free becomes "major" (for some definition) then all of a sudden I have to filter my writing through some kind of average acceptableness test? Come on. [edit] It would be one thing if this was published on Zig letterhead, but it was the guy's personal blog...

▲

orangedog 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

You have to if you give a shit about the community you are leading, yes. You're not operating as a private figure in that role, everything you do affects the community and it is blind or selfish to act otherwise.

▲

27183 3 days ago | parent [-]

This is so deeply wrong. This person owes you nothing. You're accusing them of "selfishness" after they've given away thousands of hours of their time... Your entitlement is just breathtaking.

▲

ai_critic 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I dunno man taking 60KUSD a year only to be catty about the donor is a bit entitled as well.

▲

em-bee 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

giving away thousands of hours of work does not entitle you to be abusive to your users and contributors. i am entitled to walk away from your project if i don't like your tone.

▲

deanCommie 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Look, I get where you're coming from, I do.

In the last decade, we've seen rampant abuses and exploitation of open source projects and of maintainers. So much individual good will and generous efforts wasted because of corporate malfeasanse.

AND YET. If you "open source" a project, if you actually invest in BUILDING a community, you then become a PART Of that community - with the benefits and obligations that come with it.

You don't want the obligations? Fine. But then you don't really get to keep participating in the community. And if you act like "This is MY community, I get to do whatever I want", people are free to shrug, and say "maybe i'll go find a different community".

Which is exactly how I see people reacting to Zig right now. They're seeing that an active member of this community (which, as you said, keeps insisting "he owes them nothing because the community wouldn't exist without them") treats people he doesn't like, and they think "Oof i don't want that to one day be me."

▲

27183 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah I'm not defending the blog post as a great way to build the biggest bestest community. Clearly it isn't. But it's also pretty clear that's not the poster's priority. And that is defensible! They don't owe anyone perfection in community building or any other thing.

If they want to write a maybe slightly unhinged blog post excoriating someone they had an unpleasant time with... that's a choice! It's their choice. I don't think we get to demand a different one. We can agree or disagree with what they said, but we can't demand they say something else.

If you want that kind of power over someone you need to ensnare them in a binding contract. No such contract exists here.

	▲	ModernMech 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I'm not defending the blog post as a great way to build the biggest bestest community. Clearly it isn't. This has been everyone's point the entire time. You agree with everyone here. No one is suggesting a binding contract exists, but a _social_ contract does exist -- and you concede that with the above recognition of how clearly this post violates it.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

em-bee 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

you have to if you want to continue to attract users and contributors. if you don't care about that then feel free.

▲

smohare 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There are fundamental realities associated to being a public figure or representative. When you are even privately held sentiments or actions reflect upon the larger organization. This reflection isn’t a purely social construct, but itself an acknowledgement of human cognitive flaws and biases that inevitably leak through to decision making.

For example, you don’t want the director of a science outreach organization to privately uptake all manner of pseudoscience, because they cannot be trusted to carry out the organization’s ostensible mission. When these sentiments come to light, said directory is morally obliged to step down.

A personal blog is definitionally public, ergo by extension reflects upon whatever organizations that person is a member of.

I say all this as someone that does not even feel the posted article is particularly incendiary.