[dspillett]

The other common “entitlement” is getting miffed when their suggested enhancement isn't something that you intend to do, or will/might get done but is very low priority so it won't be soon. Common responses are to suggest that you should reconsider “for the community”⁰, or start a moaning campaign on social media to try to get others to chip in and nag you. Or “threaten” to use something else instead, which always amused me¹ [way back] when I had some f/oss stuff out there.

Expecting quick responses to security issues is one thing, and perfectly acceptable IMO, but new features/enhancements or major changes (that might break other workflows, most importantly mine!) is quite another.

---------

[0] My response years ago when I had f/oss code out there was sometimes “why don't you do it for the community, and submit a patch?” which usually got an indignant response. Though these days if I ever publish code again it'll be on more of an “open source not open contribution” basis, so I'd not be accepting patches like that and my response would be more along the lines of “feel free to fork and DIY”.

[1] So, if I do the thing I don't want to do right now, you'll stay and probably keep making demands, and if I don't do the thing that I don't want to do right now, you'll go away and bother someone else? Let me think about that…

[kevincloudsec]

The 'I'll use something else' threat is my favorite. In my space the threat is usually 'I'll just use the AWS native tools.' And my honest answer is: if that works for you, do it. Most of them come back three months later after the first Config rules bill lands.