Echo JS 0.11.0

I have written down my conclusions as a reply to your medium post.

https://medium.com/@martinmuzatko/hello-e200a4289ed1#.60lcoyfqh

The proposal is interesting, but:

* while a scientific article can be ojectively verified in its experiments, bibliography and whatever material, how can you do that for JavaScript libraries?
* scientific peer review is an activity performed among universities, but there's no "JavaScript university" or anything with similar authority;
* who's going to actually pay the reviewers? And how? Will we expect their efforts to be like OSS?
* who's going to review the work of reviewers? Who's going to decide who can be a reviewer?
* who, and how, are going to write down a code of conduct for reviewers?

And so on. Not to mention that peer review in the scientific community can suffer of one or more of the following problems:

* absence of a second opinion;
* impracticability of appealing a rejection;
* university feuds;
* nationalistic pressure (!);
* inability to get in from outside the academic community.

Don't mistake me, it's still the best thing we have. But it has its flaws.

I'm aware of its flaws, as I said it is not a perfect system.

My idea is for a project author to pay a submission fee. Maybe developer could even choose its reviewer.
Project upvotes/downvotes AFTER a submission could be used as a ranking system for an reviewer.

Honestly, I've been thinking about this idea for a day or two. I don't have all the answers, I'm just not happy with the current situation. 

My hope was to start a conversation about it and to see if others developers would use something like this.

Maybe if there is interest for it, some github repository can be created for working on the proposal.

So you'd be paying for views? You can do that already with advertising systems. 

Seems like you've only just realised that a major part of any project is the marketing.

Marketing is a huge part of any project, especially in an already overcrowded NPM registry where most modules are doing the same thing. Maybe you need to look at your product and see where *you* can change instead of posting about how *the system* needs to change. I would recommend spending a lot more time polishing your README.md to get users to quickly grasp what your module does, what others do wrong and why they should care about your work. You also need to consider the fact that most projects fail. You don't need to work at Facebook to make headlines if you have something gold - in fact even Facebook and Google see their own projects fail all the time, just look at Google+.

The whole idea is NOT to market it prematurely, and still recieve feedback.

Then, when it's ready, to market it.

This is a whole point of a review.

Not everyone is willing to risk his project "going public" only to be trashed by people that didn't bother to review it properly.

Not every site is Hacker News. /r/node and EchoJS are two much less hectic sites where you easily can get some attention without getting run over by other projects. You managed to get people to read your blog and give feedback here, didn't you? Post to these low traffic sites first and only use HN for when you want to go full on public. But you also need to take into account that maybe people don't have the same use for your project as you might want to believe? Like I said, most projects fail and that is what drives evolution and competition.

Why do you think I didn't take that into account? You still seem to assume that I'm somehow offended that my project didn't get enough spotlight, that my ego is hurt because of it, so I want to change *the system*?

I wrote a blog post about the idea I had for an application. Scientific publishing seemed like a good idea for me, so I wrote about it. That is it. 
If you don't like it, ok. I understand. I'm not even sure If I like it. It was just interesting to me, so that is why I asked for feedback.

But most of your feedback on that post wasn't about the idea itself but how should I market my project. I'm not blaming you, because you're not the only one who made similar comments. That tells something about my writing, I'll take that. 

I just want to make it clear: I am very happy on response I got for my lastest project. Honestly I am. First version of the post featured Bill Murray "so i got that going for me" meme wich probably made the wrong impression. I thought it would be funny... I don't know, I just like that guy :). Post is edited now.

As for your input on the idea itself: "use echojs and other low traffic sites".

That is fine, but you never know if it will be low-traffic tomorow or if somebody will still mock your work publicly (maybe even tweet about it to get more laughs) - it happens.

Potential platform I'm thinking about would allow to get more private reviews. To even choose your reviewer based on his profile.

Reviewing is not an easy task, so involving money would made it more likely for those reviewers to take it seriously. If not, they would be rated badly.

Haters gonna hate. I would recommend simply ignoring them. Anything public, no matter the platform, is open to criticism and ridicule. Everyone who tries to rise above the average in some way (science, youtube, acting, github, music, athletics, etc) *will* get some level of hate. There is no "safe space" in the western world, we have free speech and that is the way it should be.

I started posting my first open source work in the beginning of this year and I have read it all by now. People will tear you a new asshole and do their best to ridicule you and your work. You simply have to take it on the chin and prove them wrong.

Yea, I'm learning that now :)

Ding ding ding! We have a winner :)

To me, your goal seems to be to get more promotion for Recycle through sympathy. I really liked Recycle. I don't like what you're doing now. You're like giving the community a spanking for not falling in love with your project over night. 

Operate from a place of strength and confidence my friend. Things may turn out for your project in the long run. Give it some time. You did good work. However right now, I forecast it challenging to get people to switch their main client framework without offering more than incremental improvements. I feel like the general consensus is that "The View Wars are over." People aren't in the mood for World War III right now. They just wanna use React.

Helpful Tip: on your next open source project, try a smaller one that is more easily able to be included in larger projects. I think you'll get more results that way. I know at this stage I have no more room in my brain for new view frameworks unless it's something out of this world fresh.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but that was not my goal.

After I wrote a blog post about Recycle, I was thinking is there something else that I could do, but didn't think of anything other than social media tools.

Then I got the idea of a platform where projects would not be ranked by popularity. I have some experiece in writing science articles, so I wrote about that idea. I have elaborated the need for it, and presented my arguments on the matter. In that post, Recyle was barely mentioned (name of the framework was never written) and those who didn't read about Recycle the other day didn't mentioned it at all.

Again, I admit the idea came to me while I was thinking of how to promote my project, but if you really believe that I'm offended by developers not immediately
jumping to my project, you really must think low of me.

Interesting idea, aside from MaxArt's points.

Regarding the original framework, I'm starting to feel like there are a lot of "me too" JSX frameworks popping up, and while I appreciate a more purely functional approach, I'm not sure that it's necessarily strictly better over static render components.

Back on topic, I've similarly wanted to see a more formal guild form around software development, but it just seems like a huge undertaking.