pull down to refresh

I just paused them. As is, they are biased toward producing code and that's the easy part now.

Somehow, we need to gate/award folks based on specification, QA, and code review.

I suspect having:

  1. a higher reward for detailed issues
  2. a grave penalty, like 50% for a single requested change
  3. banning future contributions when something is totally off base

might be enough

Have you thought about requiring an upfront payment for a PR to be considered? Which would be refunded when it's successfully merged?

reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @k00b 14h

No but that would help

reply

Losing 50% for a requested change would probably turn me off from even trying, honestly. That’s a big hit. But I recognize the challenge here

reply