So first of all, the EIP process is slow, and it’s run by volunteers, and that sucks. I think he needed to be clear when he was communicating as an editor and when not, and I think he even agrees about that.
I didn’t see instances of him being specifically abusive. Some of the worst things you claimed out were things like pinging EIP editors, and getting no response, and I confirmed you waited like 3 months for EIP 1900 to be merged, but you had only pinged nick savers. Maybe you meant to ping Nick Johnson there, and maybe this is why you thought he was being abusive?
I think the EIP process seems overwhelmed right now, I also have submissions that are not being actively interacted with, but I just assume people are busy, I don’t assume it’s malice.
From your timeline, I didn’t see any instance of Nick being directly abusive to you on Github nor Twitter (maybe you could still link to examples, but they weren’t there), but you did act fairly cruel once you had decided Nick was acting against you.
I feel like a lot of this is frustration that there hasn’t been wider community embrace of your proposals, and I mostly side with my earlier thought, that most people are just busy and distracted. I tend to agree with the saying “Genius is 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.” The ideas you’ve shared may be great, and inevitable, and maybe they make ENS obsolete, but I just don’t think it’s productive to get defeated when sharing an idea doesn’t make it take off in a 3 day window.
I think tools like dType and pipeline are useful even one user at a time, and maybe you don’t want to do it, but maybe you need a teammate who is willing to go talking to developers one at a time, and showing them how it works, why it saves them time, how it makes their contracts more composable. The first ~6 months of MetaMask was a big education effort. Most dapps built wallets into the site by default, and storing keys in an extension was not at all an intuitive next step. It can take a while to educate people into new paradigms.
I’m a huge fan of your work, and I first started following you because I was also interested in graph-based smart contract authoring, but MetaMask keeps me so busy, I can’t read every proposal by anyone, even my favorite thinkers. Things fall through the cracks. Helping people allocate their attention to the highest-impact things is one thing I’d love to see come out of blockchain, but until we have that, we have to be sympathetic to the fact that our listeners are mortal, they have limited attention and energy and time in the day, and no matter how good our ideas are, most of the value will always come from the labor of implementation, not from the idea itself.
A few times you expressed irritation at people who you perceived as being dense, or not attentive enough. I think this attitude is sometimes getting directly in the way of people who might otherwise want to learn more about the systems you’re proposing.
Infrastructure like type systems may not get viral buzz like a hot ICO, but I wish that wasn’t as demotivating to you.
Anyways, I wish good ideas always won, but ideas transmit by communication, and sometimes that communication can be tedious, and repetitive, but that’s communication, and it’s all we’ve got. I hope you find a way to rally the support you deserve without feeling slighted.