zlacker

[return to "Open Source is Not About You"]
1. newcro+it[view] [source] 2018-11-27 06:18:48
>>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.

◧◩
2. kgwgk+VK[view] [source] 2018-11-27 10:09:57
>>newcro+it
This thread made me look at Clojure again (it has been a few years since the last time). Searching for Bayesian inference libraries I came across this: https://github.com/cemerick/raposo

"Never, ever, ever give a talk about a library or other code publicly unless it's in a public repo prior to the talk. Period. (Exceptions to this might be things like case studies and such.) Doing otherwise is surely irritating to talk attendees, but it's even more disrespectful towards organizers, as their acceptance of your talk may have been implicitly preconditioned on the attendees being able to benefit from the code/library/project in question."

Is the expectation now that when you talk about something it is necessarily going to be open source? (And from there the expectations grow and grow...)

◧◩◪
3. fenoma+xN[view] [source] 2018-11-27 10:41:07
>>kgwgk+VK
That quotation is prefaced as "lessons I hope to take to heart". He's not commanding everyone to do it.
◧◩◪◨
4. kgwgk+O82[view] [source] 2018-11-27 20:28:36
>>fenoma+xN
Would you agree that talking about unavailable code or libraries is "irritating to talk attendees" and "even more disrespectful towards organizers"?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. fenoma+FR2[view] [source] 2018-11-28 03:44:33
>>kgwgk+O82
The author is saying those things about his own talks, not generally of everyone. Unless you're trying to claim they are never true in any case, I don't think there's anything to disagree about here.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. kgwgk+CY2[view] [source] 2018-11-28 05:52:49
>>fenoma+FR2
I understood that the attendance’s irritarion and the “acceptance of your talk may have been implicitly preconditioned on the attendees being able to benefit from the code/library/project in question" would also apply to someone else’s talks. But I see how the availability aspect could be part of his talk, or is expected because of who he is. If it’s about himself/his talks in particular another option would be to change the expectations.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. fenoma+w33[view] [source] 2018-11-28 07:35:39
>>kgwgk+CY2
I think you're over-parsing this. The document you linked is basically an apology - the guy's saying "if you came to this repo looking for the code for that talk I gave, it's not here, and sorry about that, and here's why I regret that and how I'll avoid repeating my mistake". Considered in context, it's clearly not a "here's what I think other people ought to do" kind of document.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. kgwgk+N43[view] [source] 2018-11-28 08:01:59
>>fenoma+w33
I agree, but the “people find presentations about code or libaries for which the source is not available irritating” seems to be a general statement.

I don’t see a problem with talks that show code (to support whatever the talk is about) without giving it away.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. fenoma+ia3[view] [source] 2018-11-28 09:30:04
>>kgwgk+N43
> the “people find presentations about code or libaries for which the source is not available irritating” seems to be a general statement.

Read the whole thing in context. He's apologizing for jumping the gun - for giving a talk about a library he intended to release, before it was ready. The implication is that it was probably a "hey try this library!" kind of talk, that has little value to the audience without the code, so he's saying he should have waited.

Giving talks about closed code that will never be released is separate from all that, and clearly not what he's talking about. Hence the exception, "case studies and such".

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. kgwgk+oc3[view] [source] 2018-11-28 10:03:26
>>fenoma+ia3
Fine, I see how it can mean that. But even reading it in context I don’t think that “the implication” was obvious. Of course, a talk based of unfulfilled promises can be irritating. It’s a good thing to avoid. No disagreement on that.
[go to top]