zlacker

>>jashke+(OP)
Though Rich is right, it pains me to read this because it is indicative of some disputes in the clojure community. I might be mistaken, but it seems that Rich is reacting to Chas Emericks' twitter post (https://twitter.com/cemerick/status/1067111260611850240). In his comments he has stated: "Finally, from a practical perspective, my core-level contributions always came from some source of pressing need in an actual, present, needs-to-work project. If I know a problem isn't going to be triaged for months and solved for years, then I'm out."

So this is not some grieving random person from crowd - Chas is a person whose libraries and contributions I value tremendously and he certainly made LOTS of contributions to clojure OSS landscape for free and out of his good will as well. So ultimately this feels like your parents are arguing (which is never a good thing) - you like them both and you just want the arguing to stop and you just want everybody to live together in harmony. But here you go, Chas has moved away from clojure now. And I have to say I am very sorry to see him go.

>>newcro+it
This is the genuine issue.

>>lettuc+kA
No. Whoever is leaving should have left without ranting is the only issue I'm having with this aggravating distraction. Chas knows very well how Clojure is authored. I suppose some people believe their contributions or community status give them higher authority and a right to publicly pressure Rich Hickey. But in reality they are only doing more damage to the community and likely Richs creative process on the way out. If this is the price for their contributions I want to live without them without even thinking about it.

As a power user, to me this doesn't appear to be a community issue. A handful of individuals take themselves way too seriously and don't realize how they are hurting someone emotionally.

The entire idea that a different process would produce better results is an insult in the first place. The progress and effect we got with Clojure with no enterprise funding/influence is a true miracle.

>>lgrape+aG
> Chas knows very well how Clojure is authored. I suppose some people believe their contributions or community status give them higher authority and a right to publicly pressure Rich Hickey.

Thought experiment: assume for a moment Rich is now running Clojure into the ground, and this is a bad thing. Who are the people that _do_ have standing to try speak up and make things better? If not Chas, who?

> The entire idea that a different process would produce better results is an insult in the first place.

No, it's not. Projects grow in complexity as they are used. It is only natural that they require improving governance models as this happens.

Another thought experiment: Name another successful open source project that's stayed on the same sort of governance model throughout the first ten years of its existence. These all usually work the same way: there's an initial individually driven chunk of core development and then the process broadens out to a more community driven effort. (With individually driven spikes along the way that are contributed into the whole.)

It really reminds me of a phrase I heard fairly recently: "Go fast alone, go far together." At some point, a transition probably has to be made.

> The progress and effect we got with Clojure with no enterprise funding/influence is a true miracle.

True enough.

And now we're looking for the next true miracle: sustained development and use over the next twenty, thirty, or more years.