Reconsidering how contributions are handled in this project

[qgustavor]

I tried some chat AIs and tried to make those generate code using this library, which many failed (they created nonexistent methods, most tried uploading files using file paths as arguments, and so on), so I recently have being updating the documentation to clarify a lot of things and adding examples. AIs might be dumb but if those are not getting the documentation, then maybe it's a documentation issue.

So, after all of that, I'm thinking on re-opening contributions in the form of issues and discussions to non-sponsors. Not now! I think the better documentation will reduce the amount of people asking the same things over and over (like asking for progress bars or to make the library handle I/O operations).

In the end I liked the demos use Deno instead of Node: it was so people can just copy and paste a command in terminal in a safe manner (as Deno only allow access to dangerous things with prompts), but I like it shows there are a lot of things related to this library that requires platform-specific code, without making the demos way too hard to understand for non-Deno users. There are a lot of comments to help that too.

The thing is, I'm still not using MEGA as much as I did when I started working on this library, but I still think it can be improved, it just need help from contributors willing to help, and not everyone can contribute with pull requests because this code is messy. At least I could enable projects and organize a board with ideas for MEGA v1 and v2.

So my plan is the following: I'll wait about two months - until August 15 - and either someone sponsors me or in this entire period no one tries to open a discussion without being a sponsor, I will reopen.

[qgustavor]

Since I got a sponsor, those limitations will be lifted up starting on the next release of this library.