Here @stuarthalloway very succinctly cosigned and distilled @timbaldridge's account of what to expect when contributing to Clojure. If only both had been available long ago, I would have moved on from Clojure as my primary tool years earlier. gist.github.com/halgari/c17f37… 
There's a *lot* going on here, and it's easy to get lost in the weeds, so I'll only address one problem: time.
As Stu says, the process is "optimized for Rich's time (not yours)", and you'll have to wait, often for months in between individual interactions/drops of feedback, and sometimes for years in total.
Project owners are always going to be more loaded than rank-and-file contributors. That's _fine_ and to be expected…to a degree.
Every project AFAIK w/ the "problem" of ppl wanting to help ends up delegating to others. Bob now owns the build, Sarah owns these core libraries, Cole owns the compiler, whatever. They all get commit, and people can do good work, supervised (post-hoc, if necessary) by the owners
But no, everything in Clojure must go through one person. Why? To ensure the "quality of Clojure".
(I think that's a softball, and it's super weird to me that programmers as agile-aware as core Clojure folk would try to make a quality claim of a ~waterfall process with years-long cycle times, but those are big tangents I'll not dig into here.)
Anyway, past some point, "my time is more valuable than yours" is simply disrespectful.
If I care about doing good work, it can't be at that kind of pace.
Worse, insofar as I am doing volunteer work, I sure don't want to feel devalued.
(Narrator: but he did.)
If I care about doing good work, it can't be at that kind of pace.
Worse, insofar as I am doing volunteer work, I sure don't want to feel devalued.
(Narrator: but he did.)
Finally, from a practical perspective, my core-level contributions always came from some source of pressing need in an actual, present, needs-to-work project.
If I know a problem isn't going to be triaged for months and solved for years, then I'm out.
If I know a problem isn't going to be triaged for months and solved for years, then I'm out.
Why am I talking about this now, especially since I've (in my own words) moved on from Clojure as my primary tool?
(a) I don't think this is an effective or healthy way to manage software projects or a community, and I don't want to see it spread as widely as other high-potential memetic material that has run ahead of Clojure uptake.
(b) I see a lot of Clojure enthusiasts wondering aloud about the "drama", sticking up for project owners against the baying hordes of entitled nerds (close to an actual quote), and otherwise wondering why a project's process matters to them. Well…
…it matters because: what happens if I'm not the only one who was willing and able to help, but has decided to move on? _Maybe_ ~closed software development is actually better for everyone involved? /s
(c) It didn't need to be like this.
🌸𝒻𝒾𝓃🌸
🌸𝒻𝒾𝓃🌸
Epilogue: Rich wrote a thing. Maybe it's a response to the above, who knows. Regardless:
a) Glad I never said anyone "ought" to do anything, whew😅
b) I hope I never develop this sort of bleak perspective on what creative work in an open community can be.
a) Glad I never said anyone "ought" to do anything, whew😅
b) I hope I never develop this sort of bleak perspective on what creative work in an open community can be.
