>> “ 2. Open source participants are volunteers and owe you nothing.”

> They are compensated with

> prestige,

That seems associated with the popularity of a project which is largely outside the control of an author. So: how could one publish code (just in case it's useful to somebody else, which seems to be a nice thing to do) and opt-out of the popularity contest?

> enjoyment,

People can have the same enjoyment without publishing the code, so there's nothing open source about that.

> decision-making power,

In their own project? Of course. Again, they could just keep it private, with exactly the same decision-making power - nothing open source about that.

> future employment rewards,

If a developer ships crap code, that issue seems to sort itself out automatically (who would hire a proud author of unsafe code?)

> and sometimes even money,

Those paying money certainly can and do make demands. I haven't heard claims about breach of contract in this case, so that's probably not a factor here?

> “ That seems associated with the popularity of a project which is largely outside the control of an author.”

Huh?

People have a right to become angry. They absolutely don't have any right to override the will of a project maintainer.

By the way, isn't this a great opportunity? The code is open. Fork it. Seize the day. Become a better maintainer, and build a community around your fork. Ensure the community needs and wants are aligned with yours. Steer that ship. Gain prestige. And money, maybe.

If someone is a bad maintainer, there will be no community, no prestige, and no money.

> People have a right to become angry.

No. You have a right to be annoyed, and then fork the project if you want.

You do not have a right to become angry unless you're paying for it.

I'll clarify. I meant that people are entitled to their own emotions, and being angry is ok. What's not ok is to hurl the anger towards somebody. In this case, there are lots of other good options, all of them more productive and compassionate than simply grabbing the pitchforks.

No, you do have the right to be angry, even for something you’re not paying for. Absence of a financial agreement does not mean dissolution of basic community norms.

> Seems everyone believes there is large team behind actix with unlimited time and budget. (Btw thanks to everyone who provided prs and other help!) For example, async/await took three weeks 12 hours/day work stint, quite exhausting, and what happened after release, I started to receive complaints that docs are not updated and i have to go fix my shit.

> enjoyment

Riiight

I think your quoted comment just proves the point. Without community complaint / critical response, there isn’t incentive for the implementer to do the thing the community needs.

If you do X for enjoyment and it actively hinders some other group because they needed Y and using personal priorities to rank addressing X instead of Y is an egregious violation of community norms, people will take action to bring down the enjoyability of doing X and raise the enjoyability of doing Y, like complaining about X and thanking you for Y.

I didn't think I would see a "I will pay you with exposure" argument.

Why? That’s the most likely type of reward you would get from a successful open-source contribution, and should be factored in to consideration of what is a priority.