3 ms·

> There is nothing wrong with being motivated by getting credit. It's wrong if it's your top priority instead of improving the codebase. And even then not bein

> There is nothing wrong with being motivated by getting credit. It's wrong if it's your top priority instead of improving the codebase. And even then not being wrong doesn't mean you are entitled to get it, your motivations are your own.

flagrant_taco 3y ago
I'm not sure why intentions would matter here, or how one would compare the value of different intentions. If someone adds value to the codebase and fixes, or helps to fix, a valid bug why should we care why they did it? Sure intentions may indicate the liklihood of the person contributing more in the future, but that's a health metric for the project and unrelated from the contribution itself.
- zarathustreal 3y ago
  >why should we care why they did it? Because it's important to cultivate the right motivation among contributors. Allowing people with selfish motivations to thrive eventually destroys the project.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    Assuming that you can control who thrives in a project seems like a death nail in and of itself. Contributions should stand on their own, why the person contributed them or who the person is should have no bearing on the FOSS project.
programmarchy 3y ago
Recognition of individual contributions is a core component to why Open Source even works in the first place. It would not work if an abstract, utopian ideal of "improving the codebase" was the primary driver. A bug fix contribution may be borne out of necessity, but ultimately codebase improvements are a side effect of the social phenomenon of people being highly motivated to be recognized by their peers. Notoriety is the currency of open source software. And that's a feature, not a bug.
- yencabulator 3y ago
  The blog post author sure has earned notoriety, by now.
FireBeyond 3y ago
Hundreds of charity and service organizations have found to their detriment that you're wrong, and that there needs to be this. I volunteered at an animal shelter that was unable to be a no-kill shelter. One of the first things they'd learned to ask at intake was "What's in it for you?" People would invariably misunderstand. "I get to help these animals" or similar. "No, that's what you're doing here. What do you get out of it?" And they'd still answer altruistically. But what the charity wanted to hear was the "selfish" answer. Because it's perfectly okay to have a selfish answer as well as be doing a good thing. In fact, it's preferable, because it's often the selfish answer that will keep you coming back when things are tougher or uglier, versus walking away because "I can't do this, it's costing me too much". Perhaps instead codebase contributions should be anonymized? Maybe then we can ensure people are contributing "for the right reasons"...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

flagrant_taco 3y ago

I'm not sure why intentions would matter here, or how one would compare the value of different intentions. If someone adds value to the codebase and fixes, or helps to fix, a valid bug why should we care why they did it? Sure intentions may indicate the liklihood of the person contributing more in the future, but that's a health metric for the project and unrelated from the contribution itself.

zarathustreal 3y ago
>why should we care why they did it? Because it's important to cultivate the right motivation among contributors. Allowing people with selfish motivations to thrive eventually destroys the project.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  Assuming that you can control who thrives in a project seems like a death nail in and of itself. Contributions should stand on their own, why the person contributed them or who the person is should have no bearing on the FOSS project.

programmarchy 3y ago

Recognition of individual contributions is a core component to why Open Source even works in the first place. It would not work if an abstract, utopian ideal of "improving the codebase" was the primary driver. A bug fix contribution may be borne out of necessity, but ultimately codebase improvements are a side effect of the social phenomenon of people being highly motivated to be recognized by their peers. Notoriety is the currency of open source software. And that's a feature, not a bug.

yencabulator 3y ago
The blog post author sure has earned notoriety, by now.

FireBeyond 3y ago

Hundreds of charity and service organizations have found to their detriment that you're wrong, and that there needs to be this. I volunteered at an animal shelter that was unable to be a no-kill shelter. One of the first things they'd learned to ask at intake was "What's in it for you?" People would invariably misunderstand. "I get to help these animals" or similar. "No, that's what you're doing here. What do you get out of it?" And they'd still answer altruistically. But what the charity wanted to hear was the "selfish" answer. Because it's perfectly okay to have a selfish answer as well as be doing a good thing. In fact, it's preferable, because it's often the selfish answer that will keep you coming back when things are tougher or uglier, versus walking away because "I can't do this, it's costing me too much". Perhaps instead codebase contributions should be anonymized? Maybe then we can ensure people are contributing "for the right reasons"...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]