4 ms·
> You know, as one of the people who sat in a room with my colleagues, listening them talk through the hours and hour of thinking they had done around how to co
by quadrifoliate 6y ago
> You know, as one of the people who sat in a room with my colleagues, listening them talk through the hours and hour of thinking they had done around how to contribute meaningfully to OSS, revising and revising till they landed on hacktoberfest
I find it weird that none of your suggestions involved allowing the maintainers of the software project to decide if the contributions were worthy of a reward? I also find it odd that people who had contributed meaningfully to OSS would suggest a numerical bound on PRs as a measure of meaningful contributions.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I honestly don't think this was particularly well designed to begin with. The "bad actors" are assholes, sure, but I think you also need to revise your concepts about meaningful OSS contributions.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- neom 6y agoWell I haven't worked for DigitalOcean in many many years. My reply was to calling hacktoberfest "shit". I do agree given the scale the initiative has reached, projects should reach out to DO, get on a list and be the "approved" project. As a point of interest on your "but I honestly don't think this was particularly well designed to begin with" - how would you have designed it?
- grey-area 6y agoFix the broken process: Do NOT auto-include closed PRs. Let maintainers choose to add a hacktoberfest label to contributions they think are worth rewarding, if they want to opt-in and they like that particular contribution. Don't emphasise t-shirts, emphasise fun and the rewards of helping OSS. These are not difficult challenges, they could fix the process right now if they wanted to. Yes their numbers would go down, but they'd be rewarding genuine contributions, as originally intended.