I am finished contributing to FAF.

[RealityCheck]

I chose a pretty good example for my point because regardless of difficulty, a two year long wait for a skim read by what the majority of the professional level developers on this client deem a hobbyist has resulted in a massive lowering of the trust relationship between different areas of contribution and a large amount of users who may never work on anything for faf ever again. This is the end result no matter how you attempt to justify it.

Your point is not very clear to me.
If you are criticizing bug prioritization, then it's not a good point because there is no one to blame here, there was no error made with the bug's handling. Its just happened to be a bug that was not fixed for a long time. So what, there are dozens of those. I explained why its irrelevant how easy it is to fix. Even if you make a poll about which bugs should be fixed first, trying people to force to work on those is pointless. And again, this is an inherent trait of open source development. Criticizing how communication happens on Slack may be a valid point, because this is were errors were/are made, but prioritization of bugs is not broken, or not fixable, depending on how you wanna look at it.
You could try to improve the process by urging everyone to spend more time on prioritization, so there is a stronger consensus about which ones are most important, but this could very well be wasted time if people choose to ignore this anyway, and they ma.

Sure, the end results of various people working in various degrees of disorganization may lead to various degrees of ugly, but there is no discussion to be had about this anymore. Why would devs discuss this if it has been discussed tons of times and is pointless and leads to no better solution. If you propose a good solution to this, the entire world of Voluntary Open Source Development will probably eagerly listen.

The baseline for Open Source Development may sound harsh, but it still is "if YOU want to see it fixed, fix it or convince somebody that can do it that it is very important yourself" and it probably will always be, not just in FAF, but pretty much everywhere.

All in all i see a lot of people complaining about development, but actual pratical drama-free, blame-free proposals of how an improved development process should look like is a a rare sight. Sometimes people are even complain about bugs not getting fixed but don't even open an issue in the issue tracker (bugs that aren't in the tracker pretty much don't exist).

While I agree with everything Katharsas said, there is an important difference here. The line "if you want it done, do it yourself" was invented to counter people who only use other people's work, without contributing themselves. A person like biass, who already contributes, just not with code, should not hear that line as often. After all, map making is as time consuming as coding is.
Maybe what is needed here is to introduce some way for people like biass to ask for fixes without fearing that they will just get the generic "fix it yourself" line. They don't deserve it.

[Lu_Xun_17]

Who the hell is biass ?

[Mad`Mozart]

okhand

[biass]

why I don't get along with blackheart.

I know you want to keep it looking racially motivated but i can be sure he just thinks you're annoying.

Biass point about the uid fix is pretty much valid.
The guys being payed should consider their contributions, work, and worry enough about it to fix it overtime and ensure some cuality.

My dearest thanks, but only a few people around are being supported with meagre donations. They wished they could do it for money though.

Your point is not very clear to me.

My point is that nobody cares about things that are not code. You're off on a tangent that is relevant to your niche which is also code. Is this because you only care about code?

Maybe what is needed here is to introduce some way for people like biass to ask for fixes without fearing that they will just get the generic "fix it yourself" line. They don't deserve it.

Introducing Slack Liaison(tm)

Who the hell is biass ?

Just a crybaby.

[nine2]

I feel like i spent 6 or so hours writing my suicide note.

That's quite a contribution

[tatsu]

My dearest thanks, but only a few people around are being supported with meagre donations. They wished they could do it for money though.

yeah!

I think we should make it known to more people that there's a patreon. I think most people don't even know!

[biass]

>skips conversation about very prevalent issues
>wants to promote more donations instead

[Katharsas]

While I agree with everything Katharsas said, there is an important difference here. The line "if you want it done, do it yourself" was invented to counter people who only use other people's work, without contributing themselves. A person like biass, who already contributes, just not with code, should not hear that line as often. After all, map making is as time consuming as coding is.
Maybe what is needed here is to introduce some way for people like biass to ask for fixes without fearing that they will just get the generic "fix it yourself" line. They don't deserve it.

Sure, this line is definitely used to shrug off annoying people. But no, it was absolutely not just invented for that.

This line is much more fundamental than that, because it is also used as the baseline for coordination between devs themselves (and in FAF's case, it extends to anybody involved in what the devs are doing). I don't doubt that bias does or did contribute greatly to the community. But that doesn't change that fact that dev x will spend his time on what he wants, and not on what "great contributer y" wants him to, unless he CHOOSES to follow y's leadership for whatever reason.
Or in other words, in the same way that Biass or any other contributer does not owe anything to any other dev, any dev that does not get payed a relevant amount does not owe anything to any other dev or non-dev contributer.

You are saying that "Biass should not hear that line as often". Let's make it clear what that means:
A voluntary dev has the choice of either responding negatively by saying that line (or choose equivalent/worse communication like right out ignoring), or he can respond positively like "ok i will do it". But there is no rule and there can be no rule that FORCES him to give a positive answer. Because its his time he spends voluntarily on what HE wants to do.

So if you want to fix the "Biass should not hear that line as often" thing with force, you would have to reformulate it to:
"Biass should have some form of leadership rights in issue prioritization and the devs are expected to follow that leadership.". This has obvious problems with generalization to other great contributers that are not Biass and as explained would also not work because you cannot force voluntaries.

The only way how you would systematically provoke a positive answer is to personally persuade the dev with good arguments. Which basically means discussions everywhere, and discussing is always tiring. But there is no other mode of operation in open source.
Or create a process where stronger consensus on prioritization is made throughout the entire community, so that what the devs want to work on better aligns with what everyone else wants. But this too means discussion or things like polls. And of course not everybody will agree. Even if a dev himself thinks that issue A is more important, he may choose to work on issue B anyway for a ton of other reasons.

Back to what Geo said some posts before:
From Geos perspective, he is working hard on fixing issues that were voted important in a poll by the community, namely connection issues. He works on ICE a LOT. So the consensus thing is working from his perspective. Also from my perspective, this is one of the most important things. So when there is an agreement about what things are important, things work just fine.
If there isn't, there will be frustation for the non-devs, obviously, but again, that is an inherent property of how the open source process works.

[tatsu]

I actually read the whole thread plus your whole doc.

[biass]

I actually read the whole thread plus your whole doc.

You can read something and then ignore it, ever made a ban appeal?

Biass should have some form of leadership rights in issue prioritization and the devs are expected to follow that leadership

biass just wanted people to give a shit in the end. That never happened because FAF is just a resume padder, so i will go to where people do give a shit, it's simple.

Biass is

was