2023/08/on-moq-and-our-part-in-the-oss-sustainability-social-contract/

[giscus[bot]]

2023/08/on-moq-and-our-part-in-the-oss-sustainability-social-contract/

Let they who are without OSS sin cast the first stone. Let’s look inward on OSS sustainability issues.

https://seankilleen.com/2023/08/on-moq-and-our-part-in-the-oss-sustainability-social-contract/

[ObsidianPhoenix]

This is an interesting viewpoint on the whole Moq issue. Thanks.

One (more) thing I would say though, is that when a OSS product becomes ubiquitous (as Moq has done), non-contributors have a legitimate expectation that the project continues along a similar trajectory. Or at least the changes are done in such a significant manner that you cannot get implicitly swept along simply by updating the package.

Case in point: Moq has for years been a project that does not include phone-home capabilities. I don't think its unreasonable for non-contributing users to expect that that doesn't just magically start happening "without warning". And you are right that a single blog post 8 months ago does not constitute appropriate communication on the matter.

If the maintainers want to include that, they are more than welcome to do it, but I shouldn't be finding out after I've updated the dependency. Especially not if I need to have read some blog posts/github issues/etc to have been aware. In my view, the least the repo could do find ways to ensure I'm aware it's coming, so I can accept the risk, or pump the brakes in plenty of time.

Non-contributors should absolutely not get angry if the maintainers do not prioritise the features they want, or fix the bugs they find in a timely manner. If its that important, put your money (or your time) where your mouth is and get stuck in.