Somebody who was previously active on the kbin codeberg repo has left that to make a fork of kbin called mbin.
repo: https://github.com/MbinOrg/mbin
In the readme it says:
Important: Mbin is focused on what the community wants, pull requests can be merged by any repo member. Discussions take place on Matrix then consensus has to be reached by the community. If approved by the community, no additional reviews are required on the PR. It’s built entirely on trust.
As a person who hangs around in repos but isn’t a developer that sounds totally insane. Couldn’t someone easily slip malicious, or just bad, code in? Like you could just describe one cool feature but make a PR of something totally different. Obviously that could happen to any project at any time but my understanding of “code review” is to at least have some due diligence.
I don’t think I would want to use any kind of software with a dev structure like this. Is it a normal way of doing stuff?
Is there something I’m missing that explains how this is not wildly irresponsible?
As for “consensus” every generation must read the classic The Tyranny of Stuctureless. Written about the feminist movement but its wisdom applies to all movements with libertarian (in the positive sense) tendencies. Those who do not are condemned to a life of drama, not liberation.
OP here. I was intending for this thread to be about the mbin fork and its governance, not about kbin. But I guess I kinda got answers to my questions (in so much as they exist) and then some.
I have no particular relationship/loyalty to ernest or to kbin. Like a lot of people, I just got here. I may or may not stick around.
I myself am a person who tends to become intensely excited by new projects. I can come in with lots of ideas and energy feeling like I will be comitted for a long time. But can then loose interest just as quickly. (It’s taken a lot of times around the block to learn that.) So I understand why a maintainer of an open source project would have reticence to bring me, or someone like me, into their project in a position of authority without enough time (months -> years) to prove the comitment and to demonstrate competance. In fact I would regard it as poor judgement to just accept a ton of input like that. Just accepting whoever is offering energy can really lead to a lot of problems. I’ve been on both sides of those problems!
I started this thread to ask questions about mbin because I’d never seen an open source projects described like this. The mbin folks came in not really to provide answers to those questions, but to make insults on how they perceive ernest’s personality and moral charecteristics. These based on vague but petty sounding grievances. None of these posts do much to reccomend the project to me. Sounds like waa waa waa babies. If the main grievance is they weren’t allowed authority on kbin main, then I agree with that judgment based on the posts here.
Hopefully everyone simmers down. Maybe mbin can define itself in a less reactionary way in the weeks and months to come.
@radek @cacheson @TheVillageGuy @BaldProphet @melroy @ernest