Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I was always a little suspicious of the set of libraries he maintains - the documentation pages are so slick that I begin to wonder if this is a software package or a lifestyle upgrade.

Does that mean bad documentation is a good thing? Not sure if serious...

That said, there are so many red flags in this whole story that I can't tell why the whole thing is only being revealed today. It seems that, as the person who was actually working on a crowdfunded feature, OP should have disclosed the potential issues to the community as soon as he became conclusively aware of them. Much of the damage would've been repaired a lot more smoothly, had he done so.



I wish I could upvote the half of this comment that questions the wisdom of seeing good docs as a bad signal, and not upvote the part about not disclosing these issues earlier.

This same question comes up when people reveal abuse (of any kind) or other traumatic experiences.

People need time to process some events, and when you're going through some interpersonal trouble, you may think this (is your fault|will go away|is not a big problem|has been solved).


It sounds like Smith gave Reitz the benefit of the doubt until he stopped responding and deleted the fundraising page. When should he have come forward?


>OP should have disclosed the potential issues to the community as soon as he became conclusively aware of them.

Sure, but that's ideal. In practice, humans frequently delay or completely forgo sounding the alarm when there's a problem. Having not raised concerns immediately isn't out of the ordinary; for myriad of reasons, it occurs everyday.

So instead of rebuking the author, consider _why_ it wasn't immediately brought to the community's attention (or maybe it was, but not to the degree we see here)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: