# Consistent Reply Timelines Build Trust More Than Fast Ones ## Claim A maintainer who reliably replies within a stated window builds more contributor trust than one who usually replies fast but sometimes goes silent against no stated expectation at all. <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ## Scope & conditions - Requires the timeline to be stated somewhere a contributor can find it; an unstated fast norm that occasionally breaks reads as being ignored even if the average response time is short. - Doesn't establish an optimal specific window — only that consistency against a stated one matters more than raw speed. ## Evidence The talk's own contrast: a maintainer who promises "up to 10 days" and always replies within one day builds more trust than one whose unstated norm is usually one day but occasionally lapses to silence — because the second case violates an expectation the contributor never got to see stated. ## Links - [[Commons & Community Governance MOC]] — predictability as the trust mechanism in maintainer-contributor relationships - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/Ego Is the First Blocker to Opening a Project for Outside Feedback]] — because applies-in; both are maintainer-side conditions for healthy contribution. - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Open Source Governance MOC]] — because applies-in ## Tests / falsifiers - Compare contributor-retention or repeat-contribution rates between projects with a stated-and-kept SLA vs. an unstated fast-but-inconsistent norm; no difference would weaken the claim. - Survey contributors directly on whether a stated slower timeline or an unstated faster one felt more trustworthy. ## Maintenance - Last tended: 2026-08-16 - Next review: 2026-11-16 ## Source - [[3. Resources/Literature Notes/The Checklist That Keeps Open Source Projects Alive]] — the reply-timeline consistency argument.