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
Rather than reply to any of the various downthread issues, just a few clarifications:

* I don't know exactly who Rich is responding to, but I can't imagine it's for rando users who drop off drive-by TODOs for maintainers. More likely IMO it's in response to a number of people who have contributed significantly to clojure itself and to supporting projects and resources that have spoken up in recent times with various critiques.

* I'm super uncomfortable with any comparison to this kind of "dispute" as being anything like that between parents, etc., though I can see how some might think of it like that. Really, it's a disconnect of expectations and a lack of communication, which I'm glad has been resolved definitively.

* I do still use Clojure (though more via ClojureScript than otherwise), it's just not my primary rig anymore, and I'm strictly a user. The contribution process was a minor factor, not the driving rationale for my looking elsewhere; though, as I said in the posted tweets, I surely wouldn't have tarried so long if I knew earlier what I know now.

>>cemeri+Ff1
Thanks Chas for responding. Apologies for the parents metaphor if that made you feel uncomfortable - since at the time of my writing lots of comments on gist and HN were concurring with Rich and talking about "weeding out toxic personalities" I was just trying to come up with a metaphor that would offer a different perspective - that this is a type of disconnect that benefits no one and that there is no side that is clearly "good" or "bad" since all sides are needed for the whole ecosystem to work. Rich's statement was aimed at some core contributors (I am guessing now probably a bit more at Tim and less at your follow up tweet) and that worries me. Imho this situation is a lose-lose scenario: for Cognitect to lose contributors, for contributors to have spent hundreds/thousands of hours in vain and for anyone from clojure community who placed his bet on clojure and invested substantial time in learning/using/evangelizing it (affecting his/her market value in the process). Anyway thanks for all the work on clojure! I am still using some of your clojure libraries!