upvote
> make a contributor pay for the review of its PR, even a small fee

I agree!

The problem is obviously a resource allocation one. Economics solves problems like that.

To make the system viable, you need something like the free-to-play games use (shudder).

Offer a choice: user’s time and attention or money.

(This addresses the issue of excluding low-resource contributors, which we might care about for equity or because that was us when we were young.)

As an idea on the money front, you could require the contributor to pay for the tokens needed to review their PR! Maybe even let simple models review simple PRs or advanced models decide which model is needed to do the actual review.

I don’t know how the humans can contribute their time and attention effectively, but maybe we can figure that out.

reply
We've already had solutions like this in the past, pre AI. Bounty escrow companies that pay FOSS contributors per PR. They've mostly all failed or pivoted. Why?
reply
It would also exclude 75% of the world.
reply
I'm purely focusing on the effectiveness of the measure keeping the open-source ecosystem alive, not discussing much about fairness.

The current contributors are already massively skewed towards people with more ressources and time and 75% of the world, so I do not expect a sharp decrease in contributions.

reply
It also creates wrong expectations. If I pay you (even if it is $1) then I expect you to take a look at my slop and argue with me how to make it better. Just closing it will prove that you're a scammer (and not even a successful one, because you'll get at most $5 altogether).
reply
So then charge more. It’s still a resource allocation problem, and economics still works.
reply
> If I pay you (even if it is $1) then I expect you to take a look at my slop

Yes, proportional to the amount paid.

> and argue with me how to make it better.

No.

reply
[dead]
reply