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

I highly disagree with this. Sometimes someone has to do the work to discover that isn't the work that should be done. As an example, last week, I got in a fight with the Go scheduler: https://github.com/php/frankenphp/pull/2016 -- in the end, we were able to find the one-liner that is a happy-medium. I didn't open that PR, but I did the work; if that makes sense.

>>within+ke
In a program like this you can’t optimize for the assumption that every participant is acting in good faith and contributing good work even if it’s not accepted.

If a program incentivizes opening PRs even if they’re not accepted, the result will be a lot of maintainer spam from people opening useless PRs. This isn’t a personal hypothetical, it’s what we observe any time programs try to incentivize open source work. See the Hacktoberfest drama of years past where the promise of a T-shirt led to spam PRs across GitHub https://joel.net/how-one-guy-ruined-hacktoberfest2020-drama

>>Aurorn+Hk
At that point, you tackle abuse, which is a separate topic altogether.