I sympathise with this. I don’t have 160 project, but I do have one there gets a few PRs and I have closed PRs for every reason Jeff mentions.
C4 sounds like good practice, but only if you’re actually trying to build a community. I don’t think you should feel compelled to accept a request against your own projects that you maintain for your own use. I wish I knew about C4 years ago when I was trying to build a community. As it is, the project is no longer under active development, and all the platforms anyone care about have native system libraries to perform this function.
This goes counter to https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/ . Wow, that sounded religious. There are probably good reasons why it goes against C4, and there might be bad reasons.
If you’re the sole author of a whole lot of projects, and you really don’t have the time to invest to build communities, C4 probably doesn’t make any sense. Keeping maintenance to a minimum by being conservative about change is probably a good idea. If someone really wants to get one of the projects moving, they’re free to fork and apply any inclusion policy to it, C4 or otherwise.
If someone wants to build a community though, they should read http://hintjens.com/blog:93 and consider whether they believe it would have the same effect for them or not.
I haven’t built any communities, so this is pure armchairing on my part, but I find Hintjens’s arguments compelling, and there is one anecdote of the hyper-inclusive method working well for a project.
I don’t think that goes counter to the C4. I don’t even think there’s any overlap between what Geerling has written and the C4 specification besides the abstract “they’re both about project management, kinda”.
What do you see specifically as being counter to the C4 specification?
addition:
I read the hitjens.com post you linked, I really don’t see anything about building a community, just a link to C4 again, and a description of how someone created a graph (and also an extrapolation of community growth being due to implementing the C4 thing, without proving any evidence that the governance model effected contributions, because it could easily have just been ZeroMQ grew more popular so more people used it and wanted to fix it/add to it).
Need more to get a large enough sample size to see if the strategy works in the general case or for specific ones. The example is informative as the C4 was specifically about reducing the impact of one maintainer’s preferences or group politics on the development of the project. It succeeded whereas the one that kept the maintainer in control failed due to politics.
I sympathise with this. I don’t have 160 project, but I do have one there gets a few PRs and I have closed PRs for every reason Jeff mentions.
C4 sounds like good practice, but only if you’re actually trying to build a community. I don’t think you should feel compelled to accept a request against your own projects that you maintain for your own use. I wish I knew about C4 years ago when I was trying to build a community. As it is, the project is no longer under active development, and all the platforms anyone care about have native system libraries to perform this function.
This goes counter to https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/ . Wow, that sounded religious. There are probably good reasons why it goes against C4, and there might be bad reasons.
If you’re the sole author of a whole lot of projects, and you really don’t have the time to invest to build communities, C4 probably doesn’t make any sense. Keeping maintenance to a minimum by being conservative about change is probably a good idea. If someone really wants to get one of the projects moving, they’re free to fork and apply any inclusion policy to it, C4 or otherwise.
If someone wants to build a community though, they should read http://hintjens.com/blog:93 and consider whether they believe it would have the same effect for them or not.
I haven’t built any communities, so this is pure armchairing on my part, but I find Hintjens’s arguments compelling, and there is one anecdote of the hyper-inclusive method working well for a project.
I don’t think that goes counter to the C4. I don’t even think there’s any overlap between what Geerling has written and the C4 specification besides the abstract “they’re both about project management, kinda”.
What do you see specifically as being counter to the C4 specification?
addition: I read the hitjens.com post you linked, I really don’t see anything about building a community, just a link to C4 again, and a description of how someone created a graph (and also an extrapolation of community growth being due to implementing the C4 thing, without proving any evidence that the governance model effected contributions, because it could easily have just been ZeroMQ grew more popular so more people used it and wanted to fix it/add to it).
I doubt it. Pieter describes how his model was tested and proven out in one, case study here:
http://hintjens.com/blog:112
Need more to get a large enough sample size to see if the strategy works in the general case or for specific ones. The example is informative as the C4 was specifically about reducing the impact of one maintainer’s preferences or group politics on the development of the project. It succeeded whereas the one that kept the maintainer in control failed due to politics.