> The real problem are reputation-farmers. They open hundreds of low-effort PRs on GitHub in the hope that some of them get merged. This will increase the reputation of their accounts, which they hope will help them stand out when applying for a job. So the solution would be for GitHub to implement a system to punish bad PRs.

GitHub customers really are willing to do anything besides coming to terms with the reality confronting them: that it might be GitHub (and the GitHub community/userbase) that's the problem.

To the point that they'll wax openly about the whole reason to stay with GitHub over modern alternatives is because of the community, and then turn around and implement and/or ally themselves with stuff like Vouch: A Contributor Management System explicitly designed to keep the unwashed masses away.

Just set up a Bugzilla instance and a cgit frontend to a push-over-ssh server already, geez.

▲

stavros 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean, "everyone already has an account" is already a very good reason. That doesn't mean "I automatically accept contributions from everyone", it might be "I want to make the process of contribution as easy as possible for the people I want as contributors".

▲

pwdisswordfishs 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Hatching a reputation-based scheme around a "Contributor Management System" and getting "the people you want as contributors" to go along with it is easier than getting them to fill in a 1/username 2/password 3/confirm-password form? Choosing to believe that is pure motivated reasoning.

▲

stavros 2 hours ago | parent [-]

People aren't on Github just to implement reputation-based management, though.

▲

pwdisswordfishs 2 hours ago | parent [-]

What does that observation have to do with the topic under the microscope?

	▲	stavros an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> GitHub customers really are willing to do anything besides coming to terms with the reality confronting them: that it might be GitHub (and the GitHub community/userbase) that's the problem. The community might be a problem, but that doesn't mean it's a big enough problem to move off completely. Whitelisting a few people might be a good enough solution.