I’ve read this comment on lemmy’s github repository by sbordeyne:

I closed it cause I have no interest in having to battle dessalines on minor nitpicks. Feel free to take the branch and reopen the pull request.

My thought process was that since lemmy is open source, we should be free to add new features without having to battle over philosophies, which was made apparent to me with his reviews and very strong opinions over which features to greenlight and which features to debate at length over (see infinite scrolling, and this very issue which was only approved on the condition we make it a setting that is off by default). I just don’t have the energy to contribute and be challenged on every little thing, I’ll just remain a plain user of the platform and not bother contributing to the project anymore.

Originally posted by sbordeyne in #282 (comment)

Instead of contributing to a project where only @dessalines@lemmy.ml, lionirdeadman and @nutomic@lemmy.ml dictate what gets approved, why not make a fork with the settings most people agree on?

My stance is that I wouldn’t contribute to a project hosted on GitHub, or a project that considers a few opinions more important than the majority.

Controversial takes
dessalines doesn't want SEO so we get URLs for robots

It might makes sense for the semantic web, but IMO it really doesn’t add that much value… look at how silly this type of thinking has gotten w/ reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/aww/comments/glenz4/cute_baby_bunnies_think_the_golden_retriever_is/

Its gotten to reddit/community/comments/post_id/weird_lengthened_post_name, when it should be just reddit/post/postid

_Originally posted by @dessalines@lemmy.ml in https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/875#issuecomment-652165036_

:::

In my opinion, open-source projects should follow a set of principles to ensure transparency, community engagement, and effective development. Here are some key points that encapsulate these principles:

  • Clear Decision-Making Process for Future Releases: Open-source projects should have a well-defined process for deciding what features and improvements make it into each release. This process should be documented and accessible to the community. (For example, you can read about how Discourse decides what goes into each release here).

  • Complaint-Driven Development: Embrace the concept of “complaint-driven development,” where user feedback and complaints guide the prioritization of issues and features to address.

  • Transparent Donation Management: Be open about how donation money is allocated. Implementing a bounty system can further enhance transparency, enabling contributors to work on specific tasks for financial rewards.

  • Inclusive Community Involvement: Encourage active participation from the community in brainstorming and voting on potential features before finalizing the project roadmap. Community input can be invaluable in shaping the project’s direction.

  • Public Roadmap: Maintain a publicly accessible roadmap that outlines what is planned for upcoming releases. This roadmap should include the status of each feature or enhancement to keep users informed.

  • User-Friendly Feature Request Process: Provide a public feature request forum where users can submit their ideas. Clearly outline the process for how these requests will be reviewed and prioritized, ensuring transparency in the decision-making.

  • Effective Communication Channels: Avoid using disorganized or private communication platforms for project-related discussions. Instead, opt for well-structured, publicly accessible channels that don’t require users to log in to access information.

  • Document with a Blog: Utilize a blog or similar documentation platform to keep users and contributors informed about important project updates, changes, and developments.

  • MasterBuilder@lemmy.one
    28·
    1 year ago

    I don’t know the backstory to this. My view in General on open source projects is that the people who initiate those projects and manage those projects generally have final say. If enough people disagree a fork will naturally occur.

    However I’m a little uncomfortable with the idea of claiming that they should not curate and control how their own project is managed. I’m here labor of love should not be forcefully taken from them. They have reasons for their decisions and it is their baby.

    If you believe that a large number of users want the features that you want, then by all means Fork it. We will find out over time if you are right. And that is how it works. There should be no animosity.

    • Neshura@bookwormstory.socialEnglish
      6·
      1 year ago

      The problem here is, imo, that the curation is in a lot of cases based on the devs personal usage of lemmy. Meaning if Nutomic or Dessalines don’t think they need a feature you’re already facing an uphill battle to just get them to understand that even if they don’t want it, other people do. Best example I can think of is how lengthy the debate about post tags was until they relented and switched from “won’t implement” to “if somebody else does the work” (I’m still skeptical they won’t block any actual work there with nitpicks about implementation details) see this GitHub Issue for what I mean. It really takes away a great amount of motivation if you have to convince the devs about what you plan to implement. Instead of “Gauge Community need for feature” -> “Write Proposal” -> “Implement” it now is “Gauge Community need for feature” -> “Argue with GitHub Mods for a few months” -> “Write Proposal” -> “Implement”