The Linux desktop has a maintenance problem due to the lack of volunteer contributors. One reason for this is that upstream projects are at the mercy of downstream distributions, who have the final say.

As an upstream contributor, you have no choice but to meticulously plead for any reasonable request to be granted by downstreams, treating them as if they were some kind of deity. Not doing so with the utmost respect can get you on their naughty list, which they can then use against you just because they can, and because the license allows it — they will even play the 'you chose the wrong license' card when they have nothing else to say.

The idea that the distribution model expects users to report issues to downstream is no longer valid. In reality, many distributions advertise themselves as user-friendly. Users of these distributions are unaware of the distribution model, so they report issues to upstream rather than downstream. Often, these bug reports and feature requests have already been solved in previous releases, so the upstream has to regularly triage and close duplicate and outdated bug reports. This creates an additional burden for them because they end up spending their limited volunteer time managing these issues when it should be the responsibility of the downstream.

Whenever the upstream project reaches out to the downstream distribution and asks for a change, the response is usually with the downstream pretending to look for a solution by first asking for a list of bugs to be found and compiled, essentially shifting the responsibility back to upstream to start a virtual machine just to test the package and find bugs. If upstream objects to this absurd request, downstream proposes unrelated or unrealistic 'solutions', such as adapting the issue tracker or switching to a proprietary license, just to avoid doing any actual work. Eventually, when the tone of the upstream project changes, the downstream makes remarks on that tone and starts acting like they are the reasonable one; they end the discussion and continue misleading users into reporting to the upstream project, but this time intentionally and out of spite, just to continue avoiding taking responsibility and accountability.

#MaintainerLife #FOSS #OpenSource #FreeSoftware #Development #Linux

@TheEvilSkeleton We agree on a lot of things and sure, generally what you write here comes from a fair perspective, but ultimately, I don't think that matters.

Upstream has a problem and they need to work together with downstream to fix it. That will require collaboration, including the *tone* of collaboration. Framing issues as a shared problem to be solved together. You saw me write that in the other thread: No amount of being on the right side here will get you past that fact.

@TheEvilSkeleton Impart onto them the human cost this has if need be. Give them numbers to make them understand the problem and thus be your ally in solving it, rather than demanding solutions.

Show them that this caused a X support request in the past while, wasting Y hours.

If being confronted with a problem they created and its effects fails to convince them to help, then it's entirely fair to publicly call them out on it. That'll likely give you more public support than what we saw earlier

@Isofruit https://social.treehouse.systems/@TheEvilSkeleton/116557125069876147

As for "wasting Y hours", I don't think any of us keeps track of how much time it wastes. Even then, it's not just the time, but the energy too. Making volunteers do something they don't want is a significant misuse of their energy.

@TheEvilSkeleton I don't think you need to be diligent there. A simple "Issues x 2h" for a rough estimate that isn't completely outlandish would do the trick.

The only thing I'm looking at here, is what I think to be the best way for you to get what you want, since I understand your plight.

And from that perspective I can only arrive that the tone is what killed it. It is understandable that things went the way they did, your position is understandable, but it is just not *effective*.

@Isofruit at the beginning, I actually wanted to cooperate, but after that first comment of his, it was pretty clear to me that he didn't even spend 5 minutes to read the actual issue, and instead cherry picked parts of messages. Like, that's what he does later too

@TheEvilSkeleton I'm not sure if my work environment hardened me in that direction or if it's just because I'm reaching my mid thirties and am thus basically dead, but I think being more relaxed would've been the solution.

Just repeatedly forcing the topic back to the point - and ideally from the jump not giving them the chance to get distracted.

IIRC Sebastian Wick similarly had an issue with a PR where imo he escalated too quickly (if you follow him on Mastodon you'll know).