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.
Obviously technically the same things are possible but I gotta imagine there's a bit less noise on projects hosted on other platforms
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.
I can't check out unless I pay. How is that feedback?
- When I buy an item I still have to click a "check out" link to enter my address and actually pay for the item. I could take days after buying the item to click that link. - Some sellers might not accept PayPal, instead after I check out I get the sellers bank information and have to manually wire the money. I could take days after checking out to actually perform the money transfer.
Also, upvotes and merge decisions may well come from different people, who happen to disagree. This is in fact healthy sometimes.
Ya, I'm just wondering how this system avoids a 51% attack. Simply put there are a fixed number of human contributers, but effectively an infinite number of bot contributers.