[raphman_]

> I don’t recall the author now, but the gist of the argument made was that we’re too protective of our code - if you give someone responsibility, show that you trust them, more often than not, your intuition about people abusing their freedom is way off.

Maybe it was some of Pieter Hintjens writing and/or the C4 process:

* https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/

* http://hintjens.com/blog:112

* http://hintjens.com/blog:106

Edit: oh, as the author mentions a blog post from 2012, it probably isn't any of the above posts (which are newer) but maybe something related to C4.

[goflyapig]

I'd guess it was this:

http://felixge.de/2013/03/11/the-pull-request-hack.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5357417

[PieterH]

Felix and I met some time before he wrote that blog post, and I explained our C4 process to him. His pull request hack, which I merged into C4 not long after, is neat though github doesn't provide the tools to do it easily.

[daurnimator]

Yeah that was my first guess. My second guess would be the articles around the demise of nanomsg. http://sealedabstract.com/rants/nanomsg-postmortem-and-other...

[patcon]

Was going to suggest the same thing :) I haven't had the sort of success that the OP did, but that PR Hack post def inspired my way of operating! Yay Felix

[drspacemonkey]

I'm gonna say you're probably right. I read the same thing years ago, and it was the first thing that popped into my head reading this.

[tbirdz]

Hentjens' "Social Architecture" book goes into the same topic in more detail, and is freely available here: https://hintjens.gitbooks.io/social-architecture/content/

[PieterH]

Small correction: "Hintjens". Don't blame me, some 19th century Flemish priest misspelt "Awesome" so there we are.