1/ I am continually surprised by how confused people are when it comes to 'OS sustainability'. Most people are very confident they understand the problem, but when you speak to them, they immediately default to 'let's incentivize contributions to OS' 🤦♂️
2/ From my experiences, one of the main reasons for the confusion is the lack of awareness around 'maintainers'. Most people believe that OSS operates magically, simply based on contributions, but aren't informed about what a maintainer does and why it's so important
3/ The first 'aha' moment comes when you explain to them the following scenario:
- You have a patch (fix) to contribute to a codebase. What happens next?
- Someone has to review that and decide if they should merge it to the codebase.
That's usually a Maintainer!! 🤗
- You have a patch (fix) to contribute to a codebase. What happens next?
- Someone has to review that and decide if they should merge it to the codebase.
That's usually a Maintainer!! 🤗
4/ The second 'aha' moment comes when you show them the numbers*:
- Contributions to OSS have been increasing nicely over the years
- The number of maintainers hasn't!!!
That's when people start to really get it.
*(see the phenomenal work that @nayafia has done on the topic)
- Contributions to OSS have been increasing nicely over the years
- The number of maintainers hasn't!!!
That's when people start to really get it.
*(see the phenomenal work that @nayafia has done on the topic)
5/ So there is a problem and an opportunity, that people tend to confuse.
The problem of OS sustainability lies with maintainers. That's the big deal!!! Incentivizing contributions is an opportunity to create the future of work.
But these are two different things.
/fin
The problem of OS sustainability lies with maintainers. That's the big deal!!! Incentivizing contributions is an opportunity to create the future of work.
But these are two different things.
/fin
