@pac85 But what you are arguing here for is, to not accept boundaries that maintainers/project set up.

And mostly "because it's FOSS and it has to be the way I think it needs to be".

And all I'm saying here is, that we all have to respect maintainers boundaries first. Then we can figure out the rest later.

@pac85 customer services has the right to throw out any customer for any reason unless it's like because of racism or so.

@pac85 Like if I go to a random manufacturer of something and "open issues" and they show me the door, I have to accept it. But if it's FOSS you claim it's hostile to show me the door.

@pac85 > well no, the moment you accept to be a maintainer you accept a number of responsibilities.

Nope, you don't. You accept nothing. You are free to participate in a community, but you are not obligated of doing so.

The only exception where one can demand things of you is if there is a contract you signed nd get paid for it.

@pac85 Also I heavily disagree with the "hostility" claim.

That's one-sided. The maintainers were never asked if they want a relationship with their users, but somehow if the users gets told "no" it's hostile.

That's kinda absurd, isn't it? Like it's a para-social construct. There is no relationship, but somehow we accept that fake relationships should drive how FOSS is operating which sounds very sick tbh.

@pac85 well the artist also gets payed in this case to do something specific often.

Of course there are also collective of artists doing things together, but then it's a project and the project is still deciding even if individuals are having different opinions.

The mistake here is to assume users are part of the project, which they aren't. Just because they are allowed to participate doesn't grant them any further privileges like decision making rights.

@dotstdy well the project also needs to consider the community when making such decisions clearly...

Like sure there are bad project leaders, but what are others going to do about it?

People often and generally use this felt entitlement as an excuse for their horrible behavior (starting harassment, trash-talking, etc...).

If a project says "no", it means "no", not "but you are bad and you should consider my technical reasons, because I'm smart and know better".

@dotstdy yeah and you'll have a core community around a project that's doing that.

But again, you just have the worst possible interpretation of what I've said here. And might just want to vent about your own experiences here.

Project internal issues are an entirely different topic. Replace "maintainer" with "project" if you like that better. But the core message stays the same: they can just decide things if they want to and nobody has any say in it.

@dotstdy "artists are not some kind of magical being, able to trivially determine the right course of action at a glance"

but somehow trying to chime on on artists work _is_ considered a rude thing to do, but not when it's a FOSS project?

Like if I have a personal project and get random people telling me what to do, I can just ignore them in any other circumstances, but with FOSS people are feeling entitled of having that duty, which is just wrong.

@dotstdy I haven't said that maintainers should close issues on a whim because they don't like somebody. Though in this case I absolutely agree that maintainers are free and should close such issues.

It's their project. They aren't obligated to resolve any specific issues, nor to accept contributions of any sort to address certain needs.

Of course if it's a bandwidth limitation they wouldn't close it on a whim and is simple a pessimistic interpretation of what I haven't even said here.

@dotstdy actually. I think maintainers have the right to decide what goes in and what not. And they can just close any issue as "I won't resolve it, and nobody else is going to as we won't accept those MRs"

I trust maintainers and core developers to be able to decide those things and that in healthy project not a single person is just calling the shots for the fun of it.

Hot take?: Any maintainer is allowed (and also should) close any bug they don't want to fix (as in, it's a boring issue to fix) without having to state any reason at all. And people who would complain about this are horrible.