As one communications book said (paraphrase): "Should is a word for the lazy. Eliminate it from your vocabulary." > If the contribution is misguided or not goo

As one communications book said (paraphrase): "Should is a word for the lazy. Eliminate it from your vocabulary." > If the contribution is misguided or not good, it's their responsibility to reject it. Arguably, they do not have a responsibility to even look at it. They definitely do not have a responsibility to accept/reject it. All good rules fail when confronted with constraints. If a maintainer had infinite time and resources, your advice is good. Because they don't, utilizing heuristics is necessary. What the author is hinting at is being clear about turning away people seeking to boost their resume is a useful heuristic. Same reason why employers reject people whose main goal of joining the company is to boost their resume. If I'm an open source maintainer and I feel the contributor is an annoying twit, I find no problems in ignoring him altogether (i.e. implicitly rejecting his contributions). If you want to be an intermediary and take the time to judge his contributions, and report to me which ones are worth my time, I'll be happy to have you do it.