If maintainers don't want to address issues, they only have to ignore them. At least other users can then still discuss the issues in-between themselves. A lack of empathy for maintainers does not come into the picture.
No one should have to go to Mastodon or wherever to find out about the author's stance. The readme of the repo is where the stance belongs. The readme is currently grossly misleading, asking users to use Discussions, but this is not possible.
Overall it seems like a hazardous project to use.
A little more empathy wouldn’t hurt you.
They are volunteers who spend their free time so that I can build cool things for zero dollars. My demands are proportional to the terms ‘volunteers’, ‘free time’ and ‘zero dollars’.
But if you’re this passionate about communications in open source projects, I know you could find hundreds of projects that need help with documentation and overall communications. Use the passion and good things will come.
> One now doesn't even know and cannot even estimate the number of other issues that must have gone unreported. It's not safe or wise to use a package that is so shrouded in mystery. It is in fact foolhardy.
Issues don't get reported for any number of reasons. All open source is use at your own risk.
If maintainers don't want to address issues, they only have to ignore them.
and that disallowing comments on a temporary basis, starting in the last few days, is gross negligence?
And do you also believe that the offensive part of this scenario is that their users, who may or may not be compensating them but statistically are not, temporarily don't have a public venue in which to chastise them for a problem that was already responsibly solved in a previously released update?