Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vouch

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 507 posts

Re: Vouch

#81

Post by zozbot234 »

mjr00 wrote: post #68
skeeter2020 wrote: post #59

Doesn't this just shift the same hard problem from code to people? It may seem easier to assess the "quality" of a person, but I think there are all sorts of complex social dynamics at play, plus far more change over time. Leave it to us nerds to try and solve a human problem with a technical solution...

> Leave it to us nerds to try and solve a human problem with a technical solution... Honestly, my view is that this is a technical solution for a cultural problem. Particularly in the last ~10 years, open source has really been pushed into a "corporate dress rehearsal" culture. All communication is expected to be highly professional. Talk to everyone who opens an issue or PR with the respect you would a coworker. Say…

I disagree. The problem with AI slop is not so much that it's from AI, but that it's pretty much always completely unreadable and unmaintainable code. So just tell the contributor that their work is not up to standard, and if they persist they will get banned from contributing further. It's their job to refactor the contribution so that it's as easy as possible to review, and if AI is not up to the task this will obviously require human effort.

Re: Vouch

#82

Post by acjohnson55 »

1a527dd5 wrote: post #76

I think denouncing is an incredibly bad idea especially as the foundation of VOUCH seems to be web of trust. If you get denounced on a popular repo and everyone "inherits" that repo as a source of trust (e.g. think email providers - Google decides you are bad, good luck). Couple with the fact that usually new contributors take some time to find their feet. I've only been at this game (SWE) for ~10 years so not a long…

I'm guessing denounce is for bad faith behavior, not just low quality contributions. I think it's actually critical to have a way to represent this in a reputation system. It can be abused, but abuse of denouncement is grounds for denouncement, and being denounced by someone who is denounced by trusted people should carry little weight.

Re: Vouch

#83

Post by 63stack »

bsimpson wrote: post #77
speps wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The usual way of solving this is to make the voucher responsible as well if any bad actor is banned. That adds a layer of stake in the game.

That's putting weight on the other end of the scale. Why would you want to stake your reputation on an internet stranger based on a few PRs?

You are not supposed to vouch for strangers, system working as intended.

Re: Vouch

#84

Post by mjr00 »

1a527dd5 wrote: post #76

I think denouncing is an incredibly bad idea especially as the foundation of VOUCH seems to be web of trust. If you get denounced on a popular repo and everyone "inherits" that repo as a source of trust (e.g. think email providers - Google decides you are bad, good luck). Couple with the fact that usually new contributors take some time to find their feet. I've only been at this game (SWE) for ~10 years so not a long…

What value would this provide without the denouncement feature? The core purpose of the project, from what I can tell, is being able to stop the flood of AI slop coming from particular accounts, and the means to accomplish that is denouncing those accounts. Without denouncement you go from three states (vouched, neutral, denounced) to two (vouched and neutral). You could just make everyone who isn't vouched be put into the same bucket, but that seems counterproductive.

Re: Vouch

#85

Post by HiPhish »

zozbot234 wrote: post #71
HiPhish wrote: post #67

Not sure about this one. I understand the need and the idea behind it is well-intentioned, but I can easily see denouncelists turn into a weapon against wrongthinkers. Said something double-plus-ungood on Twitter? Denounced. Accepted contribution from someone on a prominent denouncelist? Denouced. Not that it was not possible to create such lists before, but it was all informal. The real problem are reputation-farmer…

GitHub needs to implement eBay-like feedback for contributors. With not only reputation scores, but explanatory comments like "AAAAAAAAAAAAAA++++++++++++ VERY GOOD CONTRIBUTIONS AND EASY TO WORK WITH. WOULD DEFINITELY MERGE THEIR WORK AGAIN!"

I think merged PRs should be automatically upvoted (if it was bad, why did you merge it?) and closed unmerged PRs should not be able to get upvoted (if it was good, why did you not merge it?).

Re: Vouch

#86

Post by Halan »

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.

Re: Vouch

#87

Post by verdverm »

mjr00 wrote: post #68
skeeter2020 wrote: post #59

Doesn't this just shift the same hard problem from code to people? It may seem easier to assess the "quality" of a person, but I think there are all sorts of complex social dynamics at play, plus far more change over time. Leave it to us nerds to try and solve a human problem with a technical solution...

> Leave it to us nerds to try and solve a human problem with a technical solution... Honestly, my view is that this is a technical solution for a cultural problem. Particularly in the last ~10 years, open source has really been pushed into a "corporate dress rehearsal" culture. All communication is expected to be highly professional. Talk to everyone who opens an issue or PR with the respect you would a coworker. Say…

> Particularly in the last ~10 years ...

This is maturation, open source being professional is a good sign for the future

Re: Vouch

#88

Post by verdverm »

rvz wrote: post #73
dom96 wrote: post #60

Initially I liked the idea, but the more I think about it the more this feels like it just boils down to: only allow contributions from a list of trusted people.

This makes a lot more sense for large scale and high profile projects, and it eliminates low quality slop PRs by default with the contributors having to earn the trust of the core maintainers to contribute directly to the project.

it also increases the barrier to new adopters

why not use ai to help with the ai problem, why prefer this extra coordination effort and implementation?

Re: Vouch

#89

Post by bpavuk »

zozbot234 wrote: post #81
mjr00 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Leave it to us nerds to try and solve a human problem with a technical solution... Honestly, my view is that this is a technical solution for a cultural problem. Particularly in the last ~10 years, open source has really been pushed into a "corporate dress rehearsal" culture. All communication is expected to be highly professional. Talk to everyone who opens an issue or PR with the respect you would a coworker. Say…

I disagree. The problem with AI slop is not so much that it's from AI, but that it's pretty much always completely unreadable and unmaintainable code. So just tell the contributor that their work is not up to standard, and if they persist they will get banned from contributing further. It's their job to refactor the contribution so that it's as easy as possible to review, and if AI is not up to the task this will obv…

...and waste valuable time reviewing AI slop? it looks surprisingly plausible, but never integrates with the bigger picture.

Re: Vouch

#90

Post by Loughla »

zozbot234 wrote: post #71
HiPhish wrote: post #67

Not sure about this one. I understand the need and the idea behind it is well-intentioned, but I can easily see denouncelists turn into a weapon against wrongthinkers. Said something double-plus-ungood on Twitter? Denounced. Accepted contribution from someone on a prominent denouncelist? Denouced. Not that it was not possible to create such lists before, but it was all informal. The real problem are reputation-farmer…

GitHub needs to implement eBay-like feedback for contributors. With not only reputation scores, but explanatory comments like "AAAAAAAAAAAAAA++++++++++++ VERY GOOD CONTRIBUTIONS AND EASY TO WORK WITH. WOULD DEFINITELY MERGE THEIR WORK AGAIN!"

The ones I've never understood are: Prompt payment. Great buyer.

I can't check out unless I pay. How is that feedback?

Post reply on HN