One of the questions you as a maintainer have to ask yourself when coming across some PR, Issue or similar is "Does this Person want to help, or are they intere

One of the questions you as a maintainer have to ask yourself when coming across some PR, Issue or similar is "Does this Person want to help, or are they interested in obtaining the identity of a 'helping person'". This blog post existing points at the latter. Depending on how you run your project, you might want to play along with that story regardless, to extract some value and make the whole thing a two-way transaction instead of a one-way one. That however requires there to be some significant value to be extracted or else you end up with a net negative. It is however also possible to reject transactionality entirely. ___ What is interesting in this case specifically, is that the author did manage to extract value eventually. If not by being the savior of lodash, then by becoming the victim of lodash. This might be another detail hinting at why whoever maintains lodash might've decided to react with a block and nothing else. Further receipts for this read of the situation include the immense clout-to-effort ratio of the PR just adding a new GitHub action that "adds more security" and the Blogpost itself opening with the actual mission statement of "improving the ecosystem".