Opensourcing a project that becomes popular induces guilt, because it needs your time and attention to thrive, but you can't afford to give it, especially if you're interested in creating other things.
This claiming "clickbait" trend is getting out of control. It's like teenagers using the word "random" as a catchall term for who-knows-what.
By definition, the title of a talk given at a conference can't be clickbait.
Furthermore, how can you claim the title's content wasn't represented until 20 mins in? The title has two parts, one of which you seem to completely ignore.
Conference talks are typically associated with a descriptive title and an abstract that expands upon it. It's not uncommon for some to title their talks to generate interest at the expense of being appropriately descriptive. This is such a title, and the text associated with the video does not serve as an adequate abstract.
The "why do I feel so guilty?" portion of this title does not efficiently convey the content of the talk and instead preys upon the reader's fear, uncertainty, and curiosity. When we read this title we say to ourselves, "Hey, I use/make open source software! What should I feel guilty about?". This does generate interest, but at the expense of being less descriptive than a more prosaic title would have been.
If I were at a conference and saw this title without an abstract, I'd consider it unprofessional. It really is "clickbait" in the truest sense of the word, only that "clicking" in the context of a conference takes half an hour of my time and might prevent me from attending another talk that I would have been more interested in, had I not been led astray by an intentionally seductive and vague title.
It is entirely appropriate to call this title "clickbait".
If the title of your post is a question then by definition it's clickbait. A more reasonable title would be, "The open source community and the pressure of being part of it."
That simple rhetoric for some reason makes you salty does not make it "unreasonable." And using a title to ask a question predates "clickbait" by thousands of years.
Which is a strange concern because the solution is obvious: if the project is popular, it should be easy to find someone else to pass on the leadership position to and move on to other things.
The only guilt should come from just straight up abandoning the project. Unfortunately the open-source world is chock full of those.
Why should someone feel guilty because they made something, shared it to the world, but one day realized they didn't want to or couldn't continue to maintain it?
To suggest I should feel guilt for admitting I can't maintain all the personal code I've opensourced for other users suggests I ought to have kept it closed source, which seems like a net loss all around.
Indeed. I made a project a few years ago and maintained it for several years. At one point I just didn't have the time (or motivation, I suppose) to continue updates and essentially abandoned it without much official word, while putting in a good amount of work every few months. The guilt was pretty crushing, so I can understand where the author comes from.
Fortunately, someone offered to take it up recently so I feel much better now.
Opensourcing a project that becomes popular induces guilt, because it needs your time and attention to thrive, but you can't afford to give it, especially if you're interested in creating other things.