On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 10:54:44 UTC, DrDread wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 10:58:44 UTC, Dibyendu

>>
>> It is the contributors job to convince not the other way round.
>
> see, there's your problem. it's not the contributors job, they do this in their free time.
> if you want contributions you simply cannot act like that.

Wrong. Spending your free time on a contribution does not automagically make it correct, suitable, or worth having. Every contribution has to be judged on its merits, not whether or not it was done on a salaried or volunteer basis.

The question should never be, "Why not merge this?" but always "Why merge this?".

On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 11:02:29 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 10:54:44 UTC, DrDread wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 10:58:44 UTC, Dibyendu
>
>>>
>>> It is the contributors job to convince not the other way round.
>>
>> see, there's your problem. it's not the contributors job, they do this in their free time.
>> if you want contributions you simply cannot act like that.
>
> Wrong. Spending your free time on a contribution does not automagically make it correct, suitable, or worth having. Every contribution has to be judged on its merits, not whether or not it was done on a salaried or volunteer basis.
>
> The question should never be, "Why not merge this?" but always "Why merge this?".

you are still missing the point. it's not about rejecting a proposal, it's about how the contributors are treated. how the 'management' wastes the time of contributors by not engaging early.

On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 11:07:36 UTC, DrDread wrote:

> you are still missing the point. it's not about rejecting a proposal, it's about how the contributors are treated. how the 'management' wastes the time of contributors by not engaging early.

This is an OpenSource project - everyone works on such projects on a voluntary basis.

By your argument, a contributor wastes management's time by contributing because someone has to then look at it no matter how bad it is.

In a project like this, everything happens because someone likes what you did, and wants to help, there is no obligation for anyone to engage with anyone.

On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 11:37:51 UTC, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:
> This is an OpenSource project - everyone works on such projects on a voluntary basis.

Open Source model is not working in huge products usually..
Greatest project sponsored by corps. Many FOSS done by RedHat, Google, Facebook and other companies.

Some academics/hobby devs could add something of course, but the most significant changes usually leads to highly paid devs.

Same with D. Many devs who work on Weka and Symmetry contributing to D, because Weka and Symmetry need those changes/fixes and interested in overall D improvements. Previously there were other companies as well (AdRoll, Sociomatic).

Business adoption is crucial for the language.
And for example Ocaml - has much better adoption than D. D really needs to improve this part.

On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 11:07:36 UTC, DrDread wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 11:02:29 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 10:54:44 UTC, DrDread wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 10:58:44 UTC, Dibyendu
>>
>>>>
>>>> It is the contributors job to convince not the other way round.
>>>
>>> see, there's your problem. it's not the contributors job, they do this in their free time.
>>> if you want contributions you simply cannot act like that.
>>
>> Wrong. Spending your free time on a contribution does not automagically make it correct, suitable, or worth having. Every contribution has to be judged on its merits, not whether or not it was done on a salaried or volunteer basis.
>>
>> The question should never be, "Why not merge this?" but always "Why merge this?".
>
> you are still missing the point. it's not about rejecting a proposal, it's about how the contributors are treated. how the 'management' wastes the time of contributors by not engaging early.

Let's hold on. There is this general critique of how DLF manages and treats contributors (which DLF acknowledges and wants to work on improvements) and there is this explicit statement/discussion:

* person_1: "It is the contributor's job to convince the language maintainers of adding a particular contribution."
* your reply (paraphrasing): No, it is not contributors' job, because they do it in their free time."
* Mike (paraphrasing): "Wrong. Spending free time does not warrant a correct and worth-having contribution. Every contribution has to be judged on its merits."
* your reply (paraphrasing): "You are missing the point. It is not about rejecting a proposal. It is about how contributors are treated."

Now, where in the discussion above was the point of "how contributors are treated" raised that you want to correct a view on this? As I see it, the whole discussion is about "contributors need to convince the language maintainers about the quality and merit of contributions", and not about "what is the interpersonal interaction in the process of convincing the language maintainers".

On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 11:37:51 UTC, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 11:07:36 UTC, DrDread wrote:
>>
> In a project like this, everything happens because someone likes what you did, and wants to help, there is no obligation for anyone to engage with anyone.

I have no obligation to be nice to my freinds.

But if I'm not I will quickly end up with none.

See how that works?

On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 13:04:09 UTC, claptrap wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 11:37:51 UTC, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:
>> On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 11:07:36 UTC, DrDread wrote:
>>>
>> In a project like this, everything happens because someone likes what you did, and wants to help, there is no obligation for anyone to engage with anyone.
>
> I have no obligation to be nice to my freinds.
>
> But if I'm not I will quickly end up with none.
>
> See how that works?

It only proves my point, because the only people not nice on these forums are these so called contributors, many of who actually have made no contribution but are happy to make a lot of demands as if its their right!

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 02:02:56PM +0000, Dibyendu Majumdar via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...]
> It only proves my point, because the only people not nice on these forums are these so called contributors, many of who actually have made no contribution but are happy to make a lot of demands as if its their right!

That's irrelevant.  Some of the people who left recently were *very* active contributors, who have had a lot of work merged and who did a lot of user support on their own free time.  We're not talking here about the regular whiners who show up out of nowhere with strange or unreasonable demands while not lifting a finger themselves. (Personally I just hit the delete button for those, it's not worth my time.)  We're talking about people who have had a long history of contributing to D getting frustrated with the way they were treated *in spite of having actively contributed* to D.

Whole different kettle o' fish here.


T

-- 
My program has no bugs! Only unintentional features...

On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 15:03:09 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
> That's irrelevant.  Some of the people who left recently were *very* active contributors, who have had a lot of work merged and who did a lot of user support on their own free time.  We're not talking here about the regular whiners who show up out of nowhere with strange or unreasonable demands while not lifting a finger themselves. (Personally I just hit the delete button for those, it's not worth my time.)  We're talking about people who have had a long history of contributing to D getting frustrated with the way they were treated *in spite of having actively contributed* to D.
>

Please would you elaborate on what you mean by how they were treated?

Admittedly I am not active here so I may be missing things, but I don't see anyone being mistreated here by Walter.

If you mean that contributions are not being looked at - I think it goes back to the fact this is volunteer project and everyone works on what they want to work on. In this setup to get someone else to take an interest in your contribution is hard! That's how it is.

The fact that someone looks at your contribution seriously at all is itself a miracle.

I don't see a solution - unless you want to fund D so that a large team can be hired!