The 100:10:1 method: my approach to open source
> Aside from the fact that much of the code that was “released” was sub-par, the very act of putting code out into the world implied (whether intentionally, or not) a willingness to participate in a social contract with those who chose to use it for their own purposes.<p>Not to disparage the 100:10:1 method, but I do disapprove of this implication. I don't want people to refrain from putting things out there, just because they don't want to feel obligated to support them.<p>I have a public blog, where I try to maintain quality, and a semi-private blog where I try to allow myself to post stuff I'm not sure about, stuff that's not interesting to anyone other than me, stuff I don't necessarily want associated with my public persona, and so on. I know others do similar things.[1]<p>I think there's no particular mechanism to do that with open source, but it might be valuable. Perhaps I could have two github accounts, one where I'll put anything I feel like, and one where I put stuff I'm proud of and want to remain proud of. If something's on my "real" github, I'm saying that if you ask for support I'll try to help you, if you report a bug I'll try to fix it. If it's on, let's call it my shithub, there's no social contract. Take a look if you want, and feel free to report bugs, but I might just say "yeah, that's a bug". Or even just "not interested in that project any more, I'm not going to bother confirming this".<p>Then, if you want to follow this method and also want to make most of your code public, you can write down the 100, put the ten on your shithub, and publish one to your github.<p>[1] E.g. <a href="http://slatestarcodex.com/" rel="nofollow">http://slatestarcodex.com/</a> versus <a href="http://slatestarscratchpad.tumblr.com/" rel="nofollow">http://slatestarscratchpad.tumblr.com/</a>