He wrote Requests. His many other side projects are not nearly adopted, supported, or maintained like Requests. This project will likely be the same as the vast majority of those other side projects.
This cult of personality stuff is really bizarre though. I actually feel bad for Kenneth in this regard, since he'll never know if what he makes is actually any good, since his followers will tell him it's the greatest thing since sliced bread regardless. I have legitimate support concerns before I would even consider using this for something real, and I've had two responses so far that address them by merely invoking his name. What a sad place to be in.
Requests is a work of art. And the man is a self taught programmer. In that regard he can be my patron saint for that matter. How many of us have repos that we don’t maintain. He does this work for free. So if he wants to let something languish so be it. If you depend on a work he doesn’t upkeep then fork it and add to it.
Sometimes I wonder, what would happen if one of these invisible heroes dies ? What would happen to Linux if Linus Torvalds dies? What would happen to curl is Daniel Stenberg dies?
For curl for instance, only Daniel can sign a release. So what happens if he is not able to do so anymore? This is just a small example, but you get the idea. There is so much power under under these men that it sometimes gets very scary.
> For curl for instance, only Daniel can sign a release.
I don't believe that's quite true. Anyone can sign a curl release, so can I. It's just that Daniel's key being used to sign a release of curl carries the trust that this is legitimate. If he were to pass away or be somehow incapacitated, another curl maintainer could start signing the releases.
The Linux kernel is a massive project with a web of contributors and maintainers, and it's clear which of the senior level members could step in at any given time.
Big open-source projects have plenty of meatspace to draw on. It's the little projects that 'come from somewhere' that actually only have one or two people 'in the know' that are the ones at risk.
More importantly for Linux, curl, etc., almost nobody uses Linux from Linus or curl from Daniel. You get it from your distributor, and in the case of Linux it usually comes with quite a few patches. These distributors (even the all-volunteer ones like Debian) are projects involving lots of people and clearly defined procedures for what to do if one of their maintainers stops being able to contribute.
A good example is glibc; several years back, a huge number of people were using the eglibc fork, not because glibc upstream (Ulrich Drepper) stopped being able to do releases, but simply because he was refusing patches for architectures he didn't like and other similar changes. Very few end users even noticed that they weren't using "real" glibc. (Ulrich has now stepped down and the eglibc changes have been merged back in.)
Most useless answer so far. Why would I take such an important decision without first getting some feedback from people who already lived the same situation? I am talking to my family every day about this, I am reading online, asking friends in the startup world, etc... Life is not as simple as "Yes" or "No"...
If you cannot learn from others and apply that to your own life and decisions, then you will gonna have a bad time...
Great answer, thanks! I consider learning that new skillset as a pro, not a con, and I really enjoy team management.
Regarding your advice, that is exactly what my long-term plan was: getting a stable job for a few years, then become an entrepreneur. But that is everybody's plan, right? Everybody wants to eventually become his own boss, but the reality is that once people get a comfortable life, it is very unlikely that they will leave that comfort zone. I don't know if that would be my case, but I think it is definitely something to consider.
I think if you have the drive to become an entrepreneur, you will. My experience, really quickly, is: Intern programmer, two years college, two years working, one year entrepreneur, at my current job for three years. I spent one year doing freelance consulting and development, and it was a blast. I had fun, but didn't make quite enough money to live on, and found a job I was happy with. I freelance on the side now. But I'd do it full-time again in a heartbeat if I could save up some money and line up some steady monthly work. I don't think starting your own business is everyone's plan. From how you're presenting things, I personally think it's very likely that you will leave the "comfort zone" you mentioned. My reasoning: It won't be your comfort zone. I've never felt comfortable just doing a 40-hour week, and I think that underlying entrepreneurial spirit keeps me from being comfortable with the mediocre and ordinary (which my job isn't).
I also hang out with a couple people that bootstrapped their own product/service while working a full-time development job and they now run successful businesses by themselves, after running it "on the side" for 1-2 years.
Most useful reply so far. Thank you. I really needed a story of someone who lived kind of the same experience.
I know there are risks, and contrary to what people here seem to think, I am not easy to rip off. We haven't even started to negotiate with my boss, of course I will try to avoid loans and all that, I am not stupid. I haven't taken a decision yet, I need to think about it and talk to my boss and team for a couple of weeks.
I understand your position. But the negotiation part is crucial to your decision. If you "just" a CTO for the startup, then I would follow the more common advice around here to reject it. Even though the experience might be valid, without the funding you wouldn't even get that, like hiring and managing other engineers - and trust me, if the founder said May, it will probably come in August at most. And if the startup is successfull you won't get the financial reward you deserve. So good experience is your upside.
BUT... if you become a Founder, a proper one, reflected in serious equity, not a BS job title, then it is very different. According to YC, less than 10% (before any funding) they don't even consider you a founder. So I would negotiate participation between a minimum of 10% and a maximum of being equal any other founder.
My opinion would be: founder or nothing. But I don't think it is irrational if the decision is: accepting the CTO role, gambling with the funding and considering experience a worthy outcome in the worst case.
