I agree with fellow commenter, now with LLM the forks will NOT been distinguished as much by their technical differences/features as their trustworthiness (which is already the case today, but tomorrow will be skewed even more). Massively increasing inertia and favouring initial/well-known work/founder/team.
replyThat's not entirely true: my work might get zero traction because nobody will know about it.
reply> That's not entirely true: my work might get zero traction because nobody will know about it.
replyBeing able to market your work and build community are key skills for open source contribution. The history of forges is littered with interesting code that never got enough attention to go anywhere.
The history is also littered with dead open source rejecting useful improvements, so your criterion doesn't help either
replyThen, as the parent commenter suggested, fork the dead project.
replyNo project is obliged to accept your contributions. It's on you to market them, either to the maintainers of the existing project for merging, or to the community through a fork.
> Being able to market your work and build community are key skills for open source contribution.
replyIt's not a key skill at all, as not everyone is interested in popularity.
Not really, even if you have a great improvement, you need to spend the overhead to keep it up to date long enough to gain traction.
replyThen marketing it to convince others to even try... If the idea is too niche it might never hit that threshold for uptake.