zlacker

>>Philip+(OP)
Great idea, I think there should be some conditions.

a) you should not be the owner (to avoid pet projects that are not actually useful) of the project or at least not the sole owner

b) ideally it should be some high impact projects that have little to no corpo sponsors as opposed to something like React

c) if your contribution is not merged in, it should not count as "work done"

>>netdev+p4
Agree but... these would be hard and expensive to assess objectively, in particular point b.

>>huqeda+t5
Some government team could just make a list of allowable projects, updating it every year, and starting for example with all projects with over 100 GitHub stars or some similar metric.

>>london+H6
GitHub stars would be gamed immediately. You can already buy GitHub stars by the hundreds from spam services.

A better solution would be to require a written proposal which gets reviewed by someone who assesses against some criteria such as project age and other factors. Don’t make it too hard, but make it enough to stop the scheming individuals who think they’re going to start their own GitHub repo, set Claude Code loose in it once a week, and call it civil service.