zlacker

>>mroche+(OP)
I have long thought that what the broader zeitgeist considers "open source" has diverged significantly from the OSI definition. Many don't even really know it exists, much less consider it. This aspect is one of them. The author is absolutely right that it does not, but I think many people's expectation of a modern open source project is that it provides them.

>>stevek+k6
Agreed. I think most people think an open source project means there is also a public repository, a public issue/bug tracker which is generally open for anyone to participate, responsive developers handling those issues in a respectful and "professional" manner, and as mentioned, pre-compiled builds for the three main OS families, and likely more specialized builds as well.

I'm sure there's more I'm missing; these are the first I came up with. Do people expect good documentation these days? A Discord server or other chat forum?

>>eesmit+yc
I think you're right, but a lot of these things are dependent on how large of a project it is. The highest order bit is some sort of open, democratic-ish (at least nominally) governance and/or acceptance of patches from outside of the team, I think. It starts with "public issue tracker and responsive, professional developers" and then grows from there.