THE_NEW_RULES

GitHub Contributions as Currency: Meritocracy or Privilege?

Chapter 8: The Trust Protocol

"Your GitHub contribution graph speaks louder than your degree. Pre-AI contributions carry 3x weight because they couldn't be generated. Five years of consistent commits? That's the new PhD."

The book champions GitHub history as the ultimate trust signal. But doesn't this privilege those with time and resources to contribute? Is open source becoming the new unpaid internship?

Questions for Debate:

The Privilege Problem

  • Does requiring extensive GitHub history exclude those who can't afford free work?
  • Are we creating barriers for people with families, health issues, or demanding jobs?
  • Is this meritocracy or just a new form of gatekeeping?

The Historical Bias

  • Why should pre-AI contributions matter more?
  • Are we creating a caste system based on when you started coding?
  • What about excellent developers who started post-AI?

The Gaming Potential

  • Can't GitHub graphs be gamed with automated commits?
  • Do green squares actually indicate quality or just quantity?
  • Are we measuring the right things?

Share Your Experience:

The GitHub Elite:

  • How has your contribution history opened doors?
  • Do you think the emphasis on GitHub history is fair?
  • What would you have done differently without GitHub as proof?

The GitHub Excluded:

  • What barriers prevent you from building GitHub history?
  • How do you prove expertise without extensive contributions?
  • Has lack of GitHub history cost you opportunities?

The Systemic Issues:

The Unpaid Labor:

  • Is requiring open source contributions exploitative?
  • Who can afford to code for free after work?
  • Are we excluding single parents, caregivers, and the economically disadvantaged?

The Corporate Advantage:

  • Do developers at companies with open source time have unfair advantages?
  • Should corporate-sponsored contributions count the same?
  • Are we measuring individual merit or employer generosity?

The Geographic Inequality:

  • What about developers in countries where GitHub is blocked/slow?
  • Do time zones affect ability to participate in open source?
  • Are we creating a Western-centric trust system?

The Alternative Metrics:

What Else Could We Measure?

  • Private repository expertise (with permission)?
  • Mentorship and teaching contributions?
  • Local community involvement?
  • Problem-solving ability in interviews?

The Quality Question:

  • Is one significant contribution worth 1,000 tiny ones?
  • How do we measure impact vs. activity?
  • Should we value depth or breadth?

The Future Implications:

The New Resume:

  • Should schools teach "GitHub portfolio building"?
  • Will this become required like degrees once were?
  • Are we creating new forms of credentialism?

The AI Era:

  • How do we verify contributions are human-made?
  • Will pre-2023 contributions become invaluable?
  • Should AI-assisted contributions be marked?

The Philosophical Angle:

The Trust Question:

  • Does GitHub history actually predict job performance?
  • Are we confusing visibility with capability?
  • What excellent developers are we missing?

The Community Impact:

  • Does this incentivize performative contribution?
  • Are people contributing for the wrong reasons?
  • What happens to open source quality?

Your View:

Is GitHub history a fair measure of developer capability?

Should we require unpaid open source work to prove expertise?

Loading comments...