throwaway150

Exactly. I don't understand why so many people think the maintainer has some obligation to accept the funds even when they aren't comfortable doing so. The terms of engagement changed. The decision changed. If they want to forgo the money, they have every right to forego the money.

> I'm not debating it... we're not debating it. You're having it explained to you.

You have not explained anything.

> That would be the very definition of a bubble.

Just as is your bubble.

> if you are going to do something for a living, make sure it is NOT scalable.

Great advice but difficult to action though.

I mean 10 years back I'd have thought programming is that thing which is not scalable. I had every reason to believe that. It required skill, experience, ability to stay current, grit for debugging hard stuff. Much of it can be automated now.

What can I pick now for a living that is not scalable today that some future technology would automate it just as easily.

> It's not really debatable.

Very weird for you to start a reply like this when we are literally debating it.

> You say "all of us"

Yes, I mean those of who don't use git-flow. That's what I meant by "all of us".

> ignore the primary branching model the vast, vast majority of people use on Git.

Do you live in a git-flow bubble or what? I've been using VCS since the dark ages of CVS. Moved to SVN. Mercurial. Git. Never worked in a team using git-flow. Never used git-flow myself. Never met anyone IRL who uses git-flow. I only read about these things on HN and blogs.

What kind of stats do you have to claim that this is the primary branching model. If I go by my experience, it's a minority branching model that only people living within the bubble care about.

> it's just a historical fact that's not really debatable.

What is a historical fact? That people use git-flow. Nobody is contesting that. What I am contesting is that the success of Git is not connected to git-flow like the grand-grand-parent comment said.

So is there anything that would actually satisfy crowd here?

Offer $25K and it is "How dare a trillion dollar company pay so little?"

Offer $250K and it is "Hmm. Exception! Must be marketing!"

What precisely is an acceptable number?

> Why do none of you understand that this is for Anna's archives official torrents only?

Because you are on the site where people who have no understanding of the domain or the problem still feel it necessary to share their opinion on things they don't understand.

> Yup, there would have been much less Git buy-in if it weren't for git flow

I don't buy this. I've never used git-flow in life. No team I've worked for has ever used git-flow. Yet all of us have been using Git for ages. Git has been hugely successfully independently and different teams follow different Git workflows. Its success has got very little to do with git-flow.

If a PR claims to solve a problem that I don't need, then I can skip its review because I'll never merge it.

I don't think every PR needs reviewing. Some PRs we can ignore just by taking a quick look at what the PR claims to do. This only requires a quick glance, not a PR review.

> Every PR needs to be reviewed.

Why would you review a PR that you are never going to merge?

This I understand very well. It wasn't my question though. No, I wasn't asking anybody to organize a structure like Wikipedia. I was challenging the parent's comment where they said:

>> This would be overwhelmed with AI slop within days.

So I asked:

> What makes 10 people curating the list more susceptible to slop?

I think a 10 person project would be less susceptible to slop than a 1 person project because more people can catch more slop or so I think. So I really wanted to understand why the grandparent thinks a 10 person project would be more susceptible to slop.

> The sole person running this site doesn't find the same things interesting than you do.

That misses the point. I know the site is run by a single maintainer and they are free to accept or decline whatever they choose. I have no qualms about it.

> The sense of entitlement displayed is really breathtaking.

Calling something "entitlement" is an easy way to shut down discussion without engaging with the argument. Labeling a concern instead of addressing it feels like a weak response. Good thing is that the maintainer did address my concern in a separate reply instead of just shrugging it off as "entitlement" and for that I'm thankful to him.

I respect the maintainer's authority over their own site. The only thing I am asking for is a bit of courtesy in return for the effort spent curating and submitting material. I do not expect submissions to be accepted, only that rejected ones receive a brief acknowledgement. If expecting that minimal level of courtesy counts as entitlement, then so be it. We all operate within a shared community, and I am only asking for the kind of consideration I try to extend to others myself.

If you missed it, I've also apologized to the maintainer for being a pain in these threads. My comments come off as overly negative and I'm aware of that. For that I apologize. But I also want to say that my frustration comes from putting effort into collecting good blogs (retrocomputing and gaming kind), submitting them, and then seeing no response or action. The maintainer has since explained that there's a large backlog which makes the situation understandable.

So in the end, all I can do is apologize. But suggesting that I'm somehow challenging the maintainer's right to make decisions about their own project is both inaccurate and disingenuous.

Appreciate the reply. My submissions fell within the scope though. I think I took the rejections too personally. Sorry for that. I appreciate the time and effort you put into maintaining the site. I will give it a rest.

Sorry for being a pain in this thread. Wishing you all the best with the project going forward.