I think it’s more than that. The quality of a foundational project, like a language, hinges in very large parts on stability and long term decisions. Saying “no” is the primary defense tool here.
It is something that I’ve come to appreciate over the years, but didn’t really get initially. A message like this one gives me great confidence in trusting the project.
People are actually afraid to say that directly for fear they'll be forked out of their own project. It's a legitimate fear, but it's also a fair fork. OSS maintainers are not responsible to us, but neither are we responsible to them. That's not how gifts work. If your maintainer is having an emotional breakdown or just wants to do something else, you route around it.
Yup. The snippet I like best (which can act as a TLDR as well) from this is the following:
> If you have expectations (of others) that aren't being met, those expectations are your own responsibility. You are responsible for your own needs. If you want things, make them.
Depending on what you want for your project, though, this isn't unilateral. If you want a supportive community of engaged users, you must engage with them in return. It's necessary in any relationship to accommodate or at least recognize the needs and desires of the other party. You cannot expect them to stay involved if your answer to everything is "take it or leave it".
I hasten to add that I am speaking in general. I am not familiar with Clojure and I am not saying that Rich Hickey and the Clojure project behave one way or the other.
And quite right too.