491–500 of 507 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not until you are wrongly considered "untrusted".
It is never wrong to be considered untrusted. It is only occasionally right to be considered trusted. Especially in zero-risk relationships that is the default on the anonymous internet.
It should just be $1 to submit PR. If PR is good, maintainer refunds you ;) I noticed the same thing in communication. Communication is now so frictionless, that almost all the communication I receive is low quality. If it cost more to communicate, the quality would increase. But the value of low quality communication is not zero: it is actively harmful, because it eats your time.
once notable policy SQL Server enterprise support used to have was you must be available 24/7 if you submit a critical issue. Microsoft was demanding as much of their time as our time.
not sure how that could be rolled out to repos but it worked
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This thought pattern leads to crypto. In that world there's a process called "staking" where you lock some tokens with a default lock expiry action and a method to unlock based on the signature from both participants. It would work like this: Repo has a public key. Submitted uses a smart contract to sign the commit with along with the submission of a crypto. If the repo merges it then the smart contract returns the t…
The "money goes to the repo part" is the problem here, as it incentivizes maintainers to refuse legitimate pull requests. Crypto has a perfect way to burn money, just send it to a nonexistent address from where it can never be recovered. I guess the trad fi equivalent are charitable donations. The real problem here is the amount of work necessary to make this viable. I bet Visa and Mastercard would look at you funny…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It feels like the problem here comes from the reluctance to utilize a negative sum outcome for rejection. Instead of introducing accidental perverse incentives, if rejected your stake shouldn't go to the repo, 50% could be returned, and 50% deleted. If it times out or gets approved you get 100% back. If a repo rejects too often or is seen doing so unfairly reputation would balance participation.
No, the perverse incentive is that there will be RepoCoin, and the people involved will be incentivized to make the price of that as high as possible.
Key differences: - Based on commit history, with nuance around relatedness of projects, types of projects, age, etc. - Requires no ongoing work. Just add it to your GH Actions CI. - Agent ready with an MCP interface, Python lib, and CLI
Discussion on HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46960412
Feedback and PRs welcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This means someone with tons of money can spam anyone repo, while the lower income people cannot raise as many PR or speak as much as the filthy rich.
The incentives are way off too. Now you have a financial incentive as a maintainter to throw out normally well meaning PR's as "bad".
OSS was already brutal for new contributors before AI. You'd spend hours on a good-faith PR and get ignored for months, or get torn apart in review because you didn't know the unwritten conventions. The signal-to-noise ratio sucked but at least maintainers would eventually look at your stuff. Now with AI-generated spam everywhere, maintainers have even more reason to be suspicious of unknown names. Vouch solves their…
The comment I read about this that I liked was that they want to push the idea of starting with an Issue and a discussion before going straight to a PR. That way you can build reputation by contributing to a discussion first. Maybe you could "earn" a temporary Vouch like this that lets you start submitting. Still open to attack but the attack is at least more difficult.
Mandating participation in discussion prior to creating any PR sounds like a perfectly reasonable requirement.
How does a potential positive contributor pierce through? If they are not contributing to something already and are not in the network with other contributors? They might be a SME on the subject and legit have something to bring to the table but only operated on private source. I get that AI is creating a ton of toil to maintainers but this is not the solution.
Honestly, the entire process of open-source contribution is broken. People should just fork and compete on the free 'market'. If you have a good idea / PR, just keep patchsets. People should mix and match the patch sets as they like. Maintainers who want to keep their version active will be forced to merge proper patch sets. The key argument against this is the difficulty integrating patch sets. This should be easier…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The incentives are way off too. Now you have a financial incentive as a maintainter to throw out normally well meaning PR's as "bad".
...which is balanced out by all the other incentives that have the maintainer currently contributing unpaid time & effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First you have to make it low-friction. If I want Joe Average to send me $1 in cryptocurrency, how is he getting $1 in cryptocurrency to send me?
There is no shortage of apps to do that these days. Venmo and CashApp are pretty mainstream for people in the US.