> I taught myself to set boundaries: it's okay to say no to a feature solely on the grounds that you don't want the added maintenance that comes from it.
This makes perfect sense. The author seems to understand well that there's a balance to be struck when working on OSS; you can't always work only on the stuff you want to work on. On the other hand, being the one who initiates and maintains some FOSS has to mean something. If it doesn't mean you get to decide (within reason) on somewhat subjective calls such as "is this feature worth implementing when weighed against the maintenance burden?" then contributing and maintaining OSS ends up meaning nothing other than willingly doing work for free and letting everyone else in the world be your boss. Clearly that's an untenable situation.
This makes perfect sense. The author seems to understand well that there's a balance to be struck when working on OSS; you can't always work only on the stuff you want to work on. On the other hand, being the one who initiates and maintains some FOSS has to mean something. If it doesn't mean you get to decide (within reason) on somewhat subjective calls such as "is this feature worth implementing when weighed against the maintenance burden?" then contributing and maintaining OSS ends up meaning nothing other than willingly doing work for free and letting everyone else in the world be your boss. Clearly that's an untenable situation.