Comment by massysett
> I understand these issues and project maintainers don’t owe random people a merge. But they do owe random people a little clarity about what should be expected as a potential contributor.
Absolutely not, no.
A potential contributor can start by assessing the project. This can begin by politely asking the maintainer whether a particular patch will be accepted. Or, the contributor can examine the project history.
If the potential contributor receives no response, or sees no indication of a robust history of merging patches, then assume no patches will be merged. The code is there for the taking. The contributor is free to fork it and modify at will.
Rich Hickey said this best:
"As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all. You are not entitled to contribute. You are not entitled to features. You are not entitled to the attention of others. You are not entitled to having value attached to your complaints. You are not entitled to this explanation."
https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba95...
I agree with most of this on a personal level. On the other hand, since your community owes nobody anything, including even publishing how they want to differentiate insiders vs outsiders, then it is absurd to be annoyed by all the overtures that you’re refusing to say that you don’t want.
To put it in simpler terms.. here is a person who wants everyone to fuck off, but refuses to even explain that’s what he wants? How are we supposed to know? If no one is entitled to an explanation, then don’t be surprised if everyone is confused.