[jlukic]

The main problem with this approach is that there’s a normal distribution of quality of contribution for OS but the community of OS users only benefits from the highest quality contribution. This is normally best achieved by the continuous contribution of the original author(s) who created or maintain the project, as they were the ones capable of designing a project complete and correct enough to achieve traction.

Most projects will actually deteriorate in overall quality if they accept average level contributors work, and certainly face harsh consequences if they accept below average contributions. Highly competent contributors demand higher salaries for their work which can’t be met by the limited funds available to OS, hence most high quality work comes from company sponsored OS or from people who have other means of financing their lifestyle outside of open source.

[WhatsCracking]

Thanks for the input. The potential decline in work quality is definitely an issue. We believe this can be mitigated by designing a system where:

1) The maintainer has the final say as to what gets merged. Hence those that submit subpar solutions won't be compensated.

2) As this system grows and more data is acquired, we can implement a reputation system based on a contributor's quality of submissions.