It doesn’t have to be a reality. But people let it be.
It’s only a reality because that kind of behavior is widely tolerated enough, or at least not met with harsh enough pushback, that it continues to drive away good contributors and cause burnout.
It’s only a reality because that kind of behavior is widely tolerated enough, or at least not met with harsh enough pushback, that it continues to drive away good contributors and cause burnout.
Boundaries are necessary in all facets of life. If they're not well-defined, then they're easily crossed and you're left trying to establish them after expectations have already been laid, making it difficult to push back. I know it's not easy, but sometimes it's necessary to say no and cut off abusive behaviors/people. This was one of the hardest lessons I learned years ago. Yes, you'll make some enemies. Yes, you'll upset people. It's necessary.
One other problem (at least that I've had) is attachment. It's difficult to detach from something you've put a great deal of time and effort into, and one of the threats that occasionally pop up are "do X or fork/hand the project over/give up" (or any other especially mean epithet). If they're serious about forking it, hey, let them. It probably won't happen—and if it does, what are the benefits for the community? Is it risking fragmentation? If you're detached, threats seem a whole lot less threatening. And we've seen what pressure campaigns can do with some success (xz) with burned out devs.
I may just be jaded and cynical.
You’re just realistic, don’t sabotage yourself.
Isn't there something called "the tolerance (or intolerance?) paradox"? Basically, something about "If you want tolerance to prevail, the one thing you can't tolerate is intolerance"? Think I've seen it mentioned here; others may be able to source my dim recollection.
Boils down to, I guess, if you don't want to get abused, abuse the crap out of abusers at the first offense.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" is an old saying but very true and often forgotten. As a maintainer or moderator, swift action which shuts down antisocial behaviour is more important than engaging. Perhaps you didn't really mean to say "abuse the crap out of abusers", but the correct response isn't abuse, it's a simple denial of engagement.
The other side of this is arrogant maintainers who have no interest in engaging with their audience and who don't accept criticism/comment. If you put it out there then you are asking for comment, if you just want to maintain your own code of your own purposes, then either don't make it open source or at least turn off issue tracking.
Well, by "abuse the crap out of abusers" I certainly didn't mean you should "fire the first volley". You can't know that someone is an abuser before they have fired the first volley. Then you fire the second one, to shut them down.
So, I'd rather not frame it as "abuse the abusers," because I think that risks escalating the situation.
Five years ago I may have agreed with you, but a lot has changed in my life to recognize that it's just not worth the time trying to engage someone who enjoys being mean.
Oh well, they already equate git itself with gitHub, so why not Open Source too.
[1]: Not to mention the Free Software movement -- no use mentioning it, since they've never heard of it.