Hi,
Le 02/07/2018 à 15:58, Wes McKinney a écrit : > * http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2018-how-open-is-too-open.html > * http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2018-oss-framework-cpr.html Very good articles, but I would stress that some of the mechanisms proposed lack metrics in their favour. Two particular examples that I know about: 1) """ I seem to recall Martin van Loewis offering to review one externally contributed patch for every ten other patches reviewed by the submitter. (I can’t find the link, sorry!) This imposes work requirements on would-be contributors that obligate them to contribute substantively to the project maintenance, before their pet feature gets implemented. """ Martin's offer was almost never taken up, although he expressed it many times during many years. I think there are two factors to it: a) Cost. As an occasional contributor, I could understand having to do a review before contributing a patch of mine, but not having to do 5 or more reviews for each patch I contribute. The effort asked is much too high, and you're probably discouraging people who are discovering the project, even before they could get hooked on it. b) Difficult. It's much more difficult and intimidating to review someone else's PR, than to propose your own changes knowing that it will be reviewed by (you are assuming) competent people. So this mechanism is excluding first-time contributors, which is probably *not* what you want. 2) """ Some projects have excellent incubators, like the Python Core Mentorship Program, where people who are interested in applying their effort to recruiting new contributors can do so. """ Actually, it doesn't seem to me that a significant proportion of frequent Python contributors have gone through the core mentorship process. It probably got us a handful of one-time contributions. Pointing to the Python core mentorship program as an "excellent incubator" sounds rather far-fetched to me. Generally speaking, there's a limit to the usefulness of hand-holding contributors, especially if your project is rather complex (as Python is), because the blocking point for contributors is *not* that the development mailing-list is a bit intimidating (as was claimed by the people who founded the Python core mentorship program). PS : as a matter of fact, the general rate of contributions to Python has been *decreasing* for years. Regards Antoine.
