Hacker News Reader

Wow, this is a great study and I bet it extends to other volunteer-based activities. In particular: open source software projects.

It seems obvious that toxicity needs to be rooted out of open source communities, and any projects that don't do so or ignore the issue will fail to keep their contributors. But it's nice to have some real studies on this with some objective results (even if not strictly for open source software project contributions).

View on HN

You need to get rid of codebase ownership and find something else to replace the trust it brings.

- Fine granularity forkability. Fork functions, not just projects

- Curators/Reviewers who endorse the validity/security aspects of those forks.

>Fork functions, not just projects

I'm not dismissing your idea, but I'm not finding the value in this compared to copy-pasting that function.It'd also be beholden to all kinds of dependency checking to be practical unless it was a tiny function.

But i can see the benefits of granular ownership. You don't necessarily want to fork off a whole new repo just to have a contributor be responsible for a module but not the entire project.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com