Maintainer stance is understandable. They are the ones taking on the risks and who will be left dealing with consequences.
Flyby contributors don’t know how much effort there is to keep things going even at good enough level. It’s up to the newcomer to convince that the new opinion matters and new risk is worth taking.
Maintainers can’t distinguish between troll and flyby-contributor-never-to-be-seen-again and genius-that-will-sacrifice-everything-for-the project.
I get that you can’t convince of anything if they don’t discuss, but that means one must earn the right to discuss, by becoming part of current organisation.
Illustrative analogy from open source project (not mine).
Project had top level directories like “ext” and “external” and “vendor” (which is confusing at the first glance). Potential contributor made PR to rectify it (memory slips on how; but seemed reasonable at first glance). Owner/Maintainer rejected this help. The would be contributor got frustrated, later complained here that the project did not care about code quality and best practices and is hostile to new contributors. I see Chesterton’s fence here and a bit of entitlement on the would-be-contributor’s side.
Editing Wikipedia is not the same as developing software, and they're different enough for the distinction to matter. Wikipedia is not Nupedia, and the comparison in this comment between Wikipedia and open source software maintenance is simply flawed from the start.
The statement that "one must earn the right to discuss" alone has the minor problem that it is totally antithetical to the actual policies and guidelines that Wikipedia aims to adhere to.
> Wiki, open source projects, stackoverflow and democratic country, all are different, but they definitely have similarities.
A unicycle and a hula hoop have similarities.
As I said, the distinction matters. The argument by metaphor in your previous comment is off-base.
Feel free to address concretely what I wrote in my previous comment.
(Though I have doubts about the quality of any insights that might be offered; no one referring to Wikipedia as "Wiki" is informed enough about Wikipedia to be informative about it.)
I think you want me to address the policy, that you linked to.
Well, the wiki’s policy is irrelevant. Or only 50% relevant.
I see that the policy tries to provide some “spirit of the law” and/or hints to avoid edit wars and such, but evidently many follow the policy only in letter and just know what not to mention, i.e. to not trigger the policy. (instead of rejecting edits with “I own this” or “I know this better”, edits get rejected with “citation needed”)
> As I said, the distinction matters.
I see you sincerely believe that it does, but I’m of different opinion.
People in any group form a hierarchy, and have (frequently unwritten) “traditions”. And those are features, not bugs.
Hierarchy is not necessarily strict or formal, but it helps with coordination.
“Tradition” is the actual way how things are done. “Tradition” can be changed by policies, it may even implement the policy to the letter, but it always encompasses more than the policy contains. Because it’s almost impossible and most undesirable to have policies for each breath we take.
> Feel free to address concretely what I wrote in my previous comment.
Somebody has older account then me here and is feeling authoritative I see. Thanks for good practical illustration.
If you dismiss peoples opinion ("quality of any insights") on the basis of their choice of words or abbreviations instead of the content, it becomes really hard to assume you're arguing in good faith.
> Sort of like if you have an infinite number of coin flips then at some place and time you'll land on heads a million times in a row, no matter how unlikely.
If random event result is any real (i.e. not limited integers and fractions) number from interval 0-1, then no number will appear twice even after infinite number of throws.
Open question surely follows: Time and space, are they integer or real?
That's kind of like asking if spacetime is quantized or not. We have bits of evidence in both directions. For example, the entropy of a 2D (conventional) Event Horizon, is identical to the number of planc-length (square) units of area on the EH sphere, and so that's a definitely quantity/number, for any given Black Hole mass. You could interpret that as saying the EH is broken up into "pixels" sort of, which a kind of quantized view of spacetime if our universe is indeed a big Event Horizon.
There is no way to unambiguosly decide who is responsible for which earnings.
Hipothetical two people cooperative that produces simple hammers. One specializes on wooden part, the other on metal part. How much each of them earned to the company? (Or producing and selling; or one spending his lifesavings to buy pricey hammer-making-equipment while other presses buttons on said equipment)
Goes further than that too, suppose the one working on the wooden part is slow and the one on the metal part is faster. And surely the value of one part or another is also different, even though its the combined value that's relevant.
Suppose as well there are a thousand people lined up to make the wooden part but hardly any for the metal, then surely the ones who work on the metal part will (try to) command a higher wage too.
I’m also intrigued and waiting for op to elaborate.
Constant that I see:
There is power hierarchy(ies) at all times, even if individuals change (necessary for any kind of coordination).
Some related things:
- to get more power one has to actively pursue it.
- power must be used to preserve the power.
- ones power depends on the power of those below. In a sense, it is a global ponzi scheme.
Disclaimer time: don’t take it too literally. Power comes in many forms (e.g. force, money, formal control of some organization). Hierarchy is not necessarily strict, total or formal, a general, sponsor of the king or his blackmailer, all are near the top - they can do decisions that lonely rural pieful fisherman can not. Exceptions can exist, there probably was occurance when loneley rural fisherman was given an army to command, without any initiative by said fisherman.
These generalities do not mean that nothing changes, there are uncountable many variables. Just, no equality or fairness. There will be challangers, there will be winners and those who lost.
(What conservation law would it violate?)