[Validark]

Intermernet said, "Posting critical blog posts [...] is counter-productive."

You said, "anybody [...] can write whatever they want". "They are under zero obligation ...". "Members of the Zig project are free to reach out ..."

Do you not realize that you have not at all addressed the point about what is the most productive way to criticize?

All you have done is go off about people's rights, freedoms, and lack of obligations. But nobody actually said "People shouldn't be able to post critical blog posts" or "People are obligated to participate by filing issues or contributing code to open source". So what was the point in saying this? Do you think people believe anything contrary to what you said?

[asa400]

The parent quite literally made a normative statement and I disagreed with it:

  > Collaborating would be contacting the Zig team through one of the many channels available and asking questions, offering suggestions etc.

If nothing else, this is attempting to define what counts as valid collaboration, and it's a definition I reject, so I disagreed with it. Good-faith experience reports are valid, useful, pro-social collaboration. Doing so is a perfectly productive way to criticize.

  > So what was the point in saying this? Do you think people believe anything contrary to what you said?

Apparently they do. The parent even made a veiled accusation that the author writing a good-faith blog post on their own blog about their own experiences "can even be seen as self promotion". Since when is sharing your good-faith critique about the design of a tool you've used something underhanded or nefarious?

Setting the bounds of valid community collaboration to "people can post on their own blog as long as I like it otherwise they're being mean" is not a set of values I subscribe to, so I felt it was worth it to articulate that.

[Intermernet]

"Good-faith experience reports are valid, useful, pro-social collaboration." Good-faith reports would be made directly to the Zig team.