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
As someone not in the know, Rich's post seems like an extremely aggressive and arrogant piece. When you put it in context, it does make more sense.

>>banana+UK
It could easily have applied to dominic and the earlier npm fiasco, though.

People are getting a bit entitled as to what an open source maintainer has to do for them.

>>bsder+1O
That was a different issue IMO. I've stopped maintaining open source projects that others rely on, and I owe them nothing. They can fork my code if they like.

And yes, it's users' responsibility to decide what code they trust. But "I trust developer/organization X" is a reasonable way to decide that, and auditing every single release is far, far more expensive. I'd be betraying their trust if I let a complete stranger release an update in my name.