This is my favorite HN thread in a long time, so (positively) surprised at the support in the comments:

https://t.co/nx8ZfDB5Bc

Maintaining open-source is brutal, and feeling obligated to acknowledge, review, and respond to every attempt to contribute is a huge burden to carry.

When I saw this tweet from @dhh the other day I couldn't help but s/email/open source contribution/, but it makes me feel horribly guilty to suggest that anyone should feel anything but grateful for unsolicited free work from contributors.

https://t.co/pg6dK0EGpI
But the reality is even though folks are generally trying to help by contributing, those contributions still cost the maintainer more than they cost the contributor, in terms of time to review, stress worrying about making time to review, and long term maintenance.
And unlike email where as long as you can convince yourself it's totally fair to not respond to unsolicited email it's okay, on GitHub there's a public counter signaling to the rest of the world that you are a poor steward of your project if you can't keep the number low.
And also unlike email, the only way to ignore something while also dismissing it from your "inbox" is to take an explicit action (closing the issue/PR) that sends a notification to the person, highlighting how rude you are if you don't craft a thoughtful reason for closing.
It's a tough problem because no one really wants to discourage contributions, it's great to have help from talented people who can fix things you haven't had time to fix, but something about it in practice just always feels impossible to keep on top of.
Almost all popular open source projects on GitHub have *hundreds* of open issues/PRs, many even *thousands*. That's way beyond the event horizon, those contributions will *never* be addressed.

All they do is sit there creating guilt.
I don't know what the answer to this whole problem of managing contributions really is but "closed to contributions" unintuitively feels like the only strategy I've seen to actually making open-source maintenance feel sustainable.
You'd think crowd-sourcing maintenance would help, but it actually creates more work than it could ever save. It's a shitty reality because it's really hard psychologically to convince yourself that you're not being an unappreciative asshole by not responding to every issue/PR 😕

More from For later read

1. The death of Silicon Valley, a thread

How did Silicon Valley die? It was killed by the internet. I will explain.

Yesterday, my friend IRL asked me "Where are good old days when techies were


2. In the "good old days" Silicon Valley was about understanding technology. Silicon, to be precise. These were people who had to understand quantum mechanics, who had to build the near-miraculous devices that we now take for granted, and they had to work

3. Now, I love libertarians, and I share much of their political philosophy. But you have to be socially naive to believe that it has a chance in a real society. In those days, Silicon Valley was not a real society. It was populated by people who understood quantum mechanics

4. Then came the microcomputer revolution. It was created by people who understood how to build computers. One borderline case was Steve Jobs. People claimed that Jobs was surrounded by a "reality distortion field" - that's how good he was at understanding people, not things

5. Still, the heroes of Silicon Valley were the engineers. The people who knew how to build things. Steve Jobs, for all his understanding of people, also had quite a good understanding of technology. He had a libertarian vibe, and so did Silicon Valley
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/


Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/

BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/

The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/

Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/

You May Also Like