Comment by sReinwald
2 hours ago
I think point a) is actually backwards and potentially counterproductive to the petition's stated goals.
The petition explicitly highlights maintainer burnout and the "unausgewogene Verantwortungslast" (unbalanced responsibility burden) as core problems. Excluding project owners/maintainers from recognition would exclude precisely the people carrying the heaviest load – the ones triaging issues at 2am, reviewing PRs, making architectural decisions, and bearing the psychological weight of knowing critical infrastructure depends on their continued engagement.
The XZ Utils incident is instructive here: the attack vector was specifically a burned-out solo maintainer who was socially engineered because he was overwhelmed and desperate for help. If anything, recognition and support structures should prioritize these individuals, not exclude them. Your concern about "pet projects with no impact" is valid, but the solution isn't to exclude owners categorically – it's to define impact criteria. A threshold based on adoption metrics, dependency chains, or inclusion in public infrastructure would filter out portfolio projects without penalizing the people doing the most critical work.
Point c) also seems problematic for similar reasons: much of maintainer work isn't "merged contributions" – it's code review, issue triage, documentation, community management, security response. Under your criteria, the person who reviews and merges 500 PRs per year while writing none themselves would receive no recognition.
The petition is trying to address a structural problem where society extracts massive value from unpaid labor while providing no support structures. Excluding the most burdened participants seems like it would perpetuate rather than solve that problem.
I think limiting the recognition to repos that reach some level of significance would solve a lot of the problems.
It would anger the smaller projects and fresh projects, but it’s the only way to avoid having people create hobby projects or portfolio-filling slop repos and try to claim it as civic service.
This reminds me of a trend a few years ago when I started seeing a lot of applications from people who listed themselves as founders of a charitable foundation on their resume. I felt impressed the first time I saw it but got suspicious after the 3rd or 4th. Then I realized that it doesn’t take much work to incorporate a charitable foundation and list your family and friends as board members. The hard work was actually raising and disbursing money. When I started asking for details about how much the organization did I got wishy-washy answers and a lot of changing the subject. This is why details matter and it’s not as simple as giving everyone who claims an achievement the same reward, however small the reward may be.