<story><title>Gamification affects software developers: Cautionary evidence from GitHub</title><url>https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.02371</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>c7DJTLrn</author><text>I really don&amp;#x27;t like how GitHub has turned into a social network of sorts. The gamified elements are encouraging people to work for free and MS probably knows this. GitHub should just be a place to host and build code, not to flex your follower or star count. Some examples of gamified elements I find quite toxic:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  * Achievements on profiles
  * Highlights on profiles
  * &amp;quot;Activity overview&amp;quot; which shows an extremely flawed gauge of the work you&amp;#x27;re doing (Code review, Issues, etc)&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>gumby</author><text>I saw it today in someone who announced a package and in their README had a gif of a mouse clicking to add a &amp;quot;star&amp;quot; to the repo.  Like the youtube videos that ask you to &amp;quot;like and subscribe&amp;quot;.</text></comment>
<story><title>Gamification affects software developers: Cautionary evidence from GitHub</title><url>https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.02371</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>c7DJTLrn</author><text>I really don&amp;#x27;t like how GitHub has turned into a social network of sorts. The gamified elements are encouraging people to work for free and MS probably knows this. GitHub should just be a place to host and build code, not to flex your follower or star count. Some examples of gamified elements I find quite toxic:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  * Achievements on profiles
  * Highlights on profiles
  * &amp;quot;Activity overview&amp;quot; which shows an extremely flawed gauge of the work you&amp;#x27;re doing (Code review, Issues, etc)&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>r3trohack3r</author><text>This is the social commentary where OSS and freedom respecting software intersect. It was called upfront when the split happened.&lt;p&gt;Don&amp;#x27;t build FOSS for others. Build it for yourself and package it for others. Expect contributions. It&amp;#x27;s okay to expect your users to contribute. It&amp;#x27;s okay to push back and expect them to contribute. It&amp;#x27;s okay to say no to PRS because you don&amp;#x27;t have time to review them. It&amp;#x27;s okay to not have the time to say you don&amp;#x27;t have the time.&lt;p&gt;Personally, package management solutions fall short of the FOSS goal for me. Hard to start with a package and float my own changes. Hard to fork and maintain my own version. The whole push for staying on mainline and pushing that burden of the original author is a symptom IMO.</text></comment>