On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 11:32:18AM +0100, Matthias Beyer wrote: > But then you have to think about why these people are doing it. > Clearly because they think they can do something better - which is > fine IMO. > > But if a fork is necessary this also means their voices were not heard > when they announced that things are not optimal for them - which means > bad community management. If they did not tell the community what they > dislike, though, I fully agree with you.
The thing that bothered me a little about your email is the assumption that a fork is what happens when there's trouble. I don't think that's always the case, and now might be a good example. Without working relationships to hold our projects together, we get forks. This isn't a good or bad thing, it just is: Often it's how projects start before pull requests happen. The *why* is what we need to focus on. Sometimes there's fights and drama that destroy relationships and leave a fork in the road, or sometimes there's new contributors who have a fork but want to get it mainlined. In this case, there's two important things to note here: - There's no reason why we're not working together, so we might as well try to build a relationship and lessen the fork of what we don't share in common. - We need both parties to want to work together. NixOS can have the best community management in the universe, but if the other half of the relationship doesn't want this then a fork will be there. This is the first I've heard of this Suckless NixOS project, and to me since I don't see a reason why there's a fork it means opportunity. Regards, Jookia. _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
