At I heard a talk today about one-time contributions to projects [1]. The main focus was what to do best to get your contribution accepted, but it also included a categorisation of projects into "our code" projects, which basically ask why your contribution is worthy enough to be accepted, and "your code" projects that ask "how can we maintain your contribution in the long term".

[1] Diary of a Drive by Coder, by James Bottomley,


And I wondered whether there is a correlation of "our code" projects being organised socially in a way that makes it difficult for new users to contribute, and as such "prove their worth to the community" by taking all those extra hurdles to get their contribution in. These projects would possibly also be more opposed to explicit docs or codes of conduct.

So here's an unproven hypothesis, there's probably a PhD or master's thesis hidden in there somewhere :)

Sign in to participate in the conversation – a Fediverse instance for & by the Chaos community