> The maintainers decide whether something gets merged or not, and I've never seen a project that says "We'll merge anything that passes our test suite". Maybe

> The maintainers decide whether something gets merged or not, and I've never seen a project that says "We'll merge anything that passes our test suite". Maybe I missed something here... Maintainers may not want to determine who gets to feed their family, by choosing which contribution gets merged (either by deciding between competing implementations, or deciding which contribution to review). That's even more extreme than typical management tasks like bonus allocation. Maintainers might also be worried that it turns open-source development in to a gig economy, with all the resulting problems. The Zig developers seem to alude to this, too. I'm not sure if open source in general has a funding problem. The corporate takeover started in the mid-90s, and is fairly complete by now. If you look closely at some of the often-quoted examples for serious underfunding, it's more about disputes about prioritization, such as long term, bug-for-bug compatibility support vs ongoing development.