That's true in general but if the code will run on their servers, they have a responsibility to review it themselves.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That's true in general but if the code will run on their servers, they have a responsibility to review it themselves.
one step forward is if SteemIt's CONTRIBUTING.md was a bit more defined like Bitcoin's CONTRIBUTING.md.
Code review is supposed to be the first and easiest step in contributing to an open source project.
The only reason I bother is that when I found Steemit, part of the proposed appeal was decentralization. Every move in that direction will make this project more interesting, if there is really any hope for this instance of the Steem network.
Steemit Inc keeps saying "resources resources" while refusing to loosen their grip and support decentralization. Supporting community contributions, and further decentralization, means less resources required from steemit, and steem begins to look more like an actual blockchain.
I doubt it works that way. They own the dream, they have to shape it and let it reach a stage first before fully opening it up. Plus, they are a company and have responsibilities acknowledge by us, if things go wrong due to contributed code, we will still come out and hold them responsible. While i am not an expert, i understand better now how huge these things are. I went from just posting to steemgigs.org and ulogs.org and even as small scale as it currently is and even though it is open source and receive contributions, in looking for contributors, i still have to look for the exact dev aligned with the vision cos the vision is still building and i want that vision to stay intact, with its framework fully understood before, i leave it all out. cos yes, the vision can so easily change and turn into something else. The current steemgigs.org is the sixth version already. cos i was still learning at the outset, it was mostly seen as a fiverr replacement by contributing developers but in my eyes it was more of a dream-building social interface than a freelancing one with the freelancing just the surface. Also, i wanted to add value to steem in new ways using my interfaces, so contributors didnt understand e.g why i would want whole-post testimonials that are curateable as opposed to just simple reviews etc. so when they build they would go away from my vision and i sometmes at the time, would sway and leave my vision and accept what they offer cos i didnt know about coding at the time and because of wasted time and because i would thinki in my mind it is actually hard for these developers. now i created an entire enterprise called macrohard to solve these things and in the near future i want to create my own progtamming lanugage that people can code in etc. In general, steemit is still fresh and can very much be considered an experiment cos nothing like it ever existed and till date none exists. when i started steem, there was akasha, yours and synereo and some others and i don't see any of those having attain success today and whatever exists out there currently has steemians on it. steem and steemit i am sure has been a learning experience for steemit inc itself and i am very very very sure it is a big deal and would be big deal or even bigger deal, where it is fully open to contribution where the main vision of steemit inc is not set and stable, at least its framework. regardless of what is contributed as well, steemit inc may be held responsible or at least feel responsibile even where the comunity is proven and love steem. I just left this comment here to related my own small experience. overall, entire decentralization doesnt exist and doesn't mean success. even on steemit, it is obvious, someone will still come out and say he has more knowledge and your post has no value. The steem blockchain host humans. where there is ever entire decentralization, that system or tech will be flawed too cos it will still host humans.
I support your comment for sure but perhaps, it isn't so time just yet.
Steemit inc may have been considered slow and all, but i so doubt that no one will not be slow, where steemit and steem is an entirely new tech, never done and without much prior to steem to learn from. those who pop up now and say they are the best and fast in development, is mostly cos they have been on steem and seen steem and build off of that experience.
Its super lame you are justifying and encouraging their centralized position.
we're talking about the community helping with the front-end website.. so many amazingly talented developers in this community that have been cast aside by steemit to make 100 renditions of the steemit website rather than improve this one that hasn't changed in over a year.
FALSE!!!
They have 0 responsibility to users of the platform, and we have 0 power except to vote with our feet, or forking. Unfortunately for most, this system is so complicated by the time anyone learns how fucked it is they are invested too deep to get out.
I'm sorry but there needs to be guidance (which is centralization), there is a difference between, individuals with many different goals and a corporate structure which goal is to figure what is needed for the project and focusing only on the project for the projects sake.
otherwise you have this which I did a year ago...
I'm only angry because I care, and really love the idea of what this platform is supposed to be about
I do love your comments, and I feel your pain. I was working on condenser for a short time, it was so lame, I just gave up before I got started, but I was not encouraged very much, and for that I am still sore...
Reviewing the reviews is generally a lot easier than reviewing the code itself.
Still they could have community members do some of the work like the initial obvious things (coding style/comments/tests/pr is proprely formatted) and not have to spend so much time.
And it's not like there is no incentives for such a system with tools like utopian.io.