> Sure, but that DOES NOT mean you're immune to criticism
The problem wasn't the criticism, but the expectation that said criticism invokes a certain behavior of the maintainer.
You can criticize open source maintenance by creating a fork in which you outline your vision (e.g. "much less use of 'unsafe' in the web package") - and deal with the burden of being a maintainer.
Everything else is just trying to force people to do stuff for you, and that's rude.
FWIW, I don't have a dog in this fight. On the one hand, there is the maintainer who is within his rights to accept or reject patches as he wishes (although it's not great that he's allegedly falsely advertising his project as secure) and you have critics who are within their right to criticize (although it's not great that much criticism is vitriolic, etc). As TFA says, it's a sad affair all around.
> The problem wasn't the criticism, but the expectation that said criticism invokes a certain behavior of the maintainer.
Of course it implies that the maintainer should change. All criticism implies an expectation of change, at least when the opportunity to change is still available.
> Everything else is just trying to force people to do stuff for you, and that's rude.
Criticism isn't "force" or "attempted force". This is just criticism. If you think criticism is rude, that's fine. Hypocritical, but fine.
You can't rationally say the maintainer is within his rights for rejecting security patches and then argue that critics are wrong for criticizing these practices.
> Criticism isn't "force" or "attempted force". If you think criticism is rude, that's fine. Hypocritical, but fine.
No, the attempt to make somebody do what you want by brigading is what's attempting to exert force and what's rude.
Hiding that behind "I'm just criticizing" (you didn't, but it's a popular refrain in such "debates") is more than only rude, it's also cowardice.
> You can't rationally say the maintainer is within his rights for rejecting security patches and then argue that critics are wrong for criticizing these practices.
The author of the package didn't force their code onto the users.
The authors of the criticism forced their criticism on him by throwing it his way in the form of bug reports etc. even when it was clear that there's no interest in it.
> No, the attempt to make somebody do what you want by brigading is what's attempting to exert force and what's rude.
Unless the critics are engaging in threats, intimidation, and/or violence, we're talking about criticism and not force.
> Criticism isn't "force" or "attempted force". If you think criticism is rude, that's fine. Hypocritical, but fine.
No, the attempt to make somebody do what you want by brigading is what's attempting to exert force and what's rude.
> The author of the package didn't force their code onto the users.
No one is arguing this. Weird straw man.
> The authors of the criticism forced their criticism on him by throwing it his way in the form of bug reports etc. even when it was clear that there's no interest in it.
Wow. I really didn't anticipate the "bug reports == force" equivalence.
I don't know that I agree with the parent post equivalence of "bug reports == force" but I think there is a point to be made that this wasn't just people speaking poorly or offering criticism. There is a real difference between posting your criticism on a platform you control and filling up the issue tracker used by the project. There is an aspect of coercion in that the maintainer has to choose between expending effort to combat the flood of unwanted issues or abandon the use of the issue tracker. They can't just decide to ignore the criticism.
Re. "The author of the package didn't force their code onto the users," it's not really a straw man. People are arguing that the author has moral responsibility for their use of his code. That ignores the fact that they actively chose to use his code. The only way the author would be morally responsible for their use of his code is if he had forced them to use it somehow. So yes, people are basically arguing this.
The problem wasn't the criticism, but the expectation that said criticism invokes a certain behavior of the maintainer.
You can criticize open source maintenance by creating a fork in which you outline your vision (e.g. "much less use of 'unsafe' in the web package") - and deal with the burden of being a maintainer.
Everything else is just trying to force people to do stuff for you, and that's rude.