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
> Though Rich is right, it pains me to read this because it is indicative of some disputes in the clojure community.

I am genuinely curious why you, or anyone else, would think he is right. I can see why people would agree or why he wants to do things a certain way, but to be right you have to have arguments backing up what you are saying. I don't see that in this post. Am I missing something?

>>hoaw+iW
I mean, he is right about open-source only being a binding license for the source, and in this case, the Eclipse 1.0 license in no way entitle users too any kind of support, decision making authority, opinion, voice, or any other such thing.

This is just fact. You can go read the license to learn more about this: https://opensource.org/licenses/eclipse-1.0.php

That part of what Rich is saying is pretty much indisputable.

The second part, is related to what is best for Clojure. And the argument is simple, Rich says what is best for Clojure is a thorough review process of all changes to its core and standard libs, with a very high bar towards contributors and their contribution. His argument is that this has worked so far, and has created the solid piece of software that is Clojure today. Thus its own success is proof that it is a good enough process and is good for Clojure.

The argument against is that contributors find it too hard and too much work and thus very little contributors make it through the process. Though I didn't really see them mention any alternative process suggestion. It seems they were mostly wanted their patch to just be merged in without challenge.