After my communication they banned me from participating in their community (I quote from them "You're not welcome anymore on our GH repo nor any other community managed directly by us.").
For those interested, we moved the sponsorship work to the Wasmer repo, so those who want to work on it can do it freely.
You proposed a change to a repo you do not own. You offered an incentive to 3rd party developers to push PRs to that repo. You did not wait until the proposal was accepted. You thus required the community maintaining that repo to do extra review work on a feature they hadn't officially accepted yet. You were refused, and then offered the same incentives somewhere else, with the same drawbacks on the zig community.
Even in your new offer it's unclear whether people should make changes in zig (add support for your features in zig) or in wasmer (change the samples to work with the current zig compiler, or build libraries that work with zig) to support your features.
There's a time and place to offer incentives for someone else's project, but that shouldn't happen without their approval.
EDIT: added extra context
> You proposed a change to a repo you do not own
That’s not accurate, your assumption would imply that the bounty would require the work to be merged upstream or reviewed by the Zig team, which was not. The bounty just required to have a working prototype. We explicitly stated that merging upstream was not required
> Even in your new offer it's unclear whether people should make changes in zig (add support for your features in zig) or in wasmer (change the samples to work with the current zig compiler, or build libraries that work with zig) to support your features
That's a fair critique, I'll update the issue to make sure this is clear
No one can do any work unless the leadership green light seems a bit restrictive
The $5,000 reward did not required the work to be merged upstream. Please read the rest of the thread
This seems to be a negotiation attempt being made fully in public by two open-source projects. I would think as the project gets popular darker pressures will be attempt
Good that came out of your behavior, though: I learned that the Bytecode Alliance is just really bad at communicating historically, but has been trying to improve that and actually has been pushing forward WASI preview 2 quite aggressively, making a ton of progress on it.
Someone linked me this roadmap video[0] in which they say:
* WASI Preview 2 ships by the end of the year and is largely usable now
* Two people are working on WASM threads
* VMWare has been working on Garbage Collection in wasmtools, and is working on getting that running in wasmtime
* Components are isolation units for threads, memory space, etc. It means a WASM module can use components without being aware of threads. Components are named, versioned, etc.
* They're considering resource and handle types (I assume for e.g. externalized file handles)
* Once WASM GC moves forward, it will also go into components.
* WASI sockets, WASI HTTP, clock, filesystem, RNG are all in scope for WASI preview 2 around Fall.
* wasmtime and a JS web implementation are in scope, so two implementations of all this.
Sounds quite promising compared to what was happening in the past! Now I wonder why WASIX is a thing instead of pushing forward with WASI given they've been changing for the better?
You can't just offer money and rush people for something to get merged in another open source project without even previously discussing it if the authors of that project want it in the first place.
Just my 2 cents.
This was explicitly stated in a comment in the original issue that for some reason the Zig leadership decided to remove
But then why did you open an issue in the Zig repo and even marked it as "Bug", while in your repo you added the "Enhancement" label?
Just admit that you've communicated it poorly and move on.
External contributors can’t select the labels of an issue. New issues get automatically tagged.
In the Wasmer repo we can obviously choose the proper label just because we have the permission to do so
Any insight on this? How can this possibly be true?
My guess it's probably something minor, like copying a few lines of trivial code or the like, at most.
(Not involved or affiliated with Zig at all, just observed this person's behaviour over a period of many years).
That's a rather large accusation to throw around. What's the context behind this?
But to give one example out of several, at one point they strategically edited and deleted some comments on a small repo of mine (from before GitHub showed you the edit history) when I announced my (completely unrelated) full-time open-source project, to make me seem an asshole to try and get "revenge" for their perceived slight of denying a pseudo feature request ("pseudo" because they were spamming the same kind of feature request to hundreds, if not thousands, of repos).
I've seen this type of thing a few time with this person: an accusation that makes you go "oh wow!" and then you look in to things and it turns out it's either a spectacular exaggeration or outright misrepresentation (i.e. lying). Maybe they're right this time, but I can't even be bothered to look in to it any more.
https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/14172#issuecomment-164...
Yes, it's petty stuff.
At least these lines sounds reasonable:
Examples of behavior that contribute to creating a positive environment include:
- Using welcoming and inclusive language.
- Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences.
- Gracefully accepting constructive criticism.
- Helping another person accomplish their own goals.
- Showing empathy towards others.
- Showing appreciation for others' work.
- Validating someone else's experience, skills, insight, and use cases.
A pity the leadership doesn't appear to hold themselves to the same standard.
I didn't have anything but a passing interest in Zig before, but this is a huge red flag about the project.