@mitsuhiko @glyph I've unfortunately never had anyone who was sending me low quality code contributions ever go on to become a productive member of my projects . My successful contributors all started out being careful and rigorous from the start. Then* they go off to do other things, which is good for them (I of course get to maintain their [pretty good] code for all perpetuity unless it gets rewritten for whatever reason). This is probably very unfortunate on my part but I don't feel much interest in acting as a brief stepping stone for good programmers and a babysitter for bad ones. I just need code written
*I have a single co-maintainer who has stuck around and he is spectacular. We interact around the clock
@zzzeek @glyph This might very well be the case, but you need to recognize that we're in a period of learning. We have these super powerful machines, but we don't yet know how to use them productively. But the solution can't be to opt out, we need to figure out how to use them.
An Open Source project that opts out of this change, is just going to defer that learning process.
I have seen this over and over now. The core of the issue is that if a project's leadership takes a hard line against it, that goes as far as not dabbling with the technology at all, then it becomes really hard because of the asymmetry that this creates.