Is this friction? I think it's quality standards, and a flow that's relevant to a time when code is more of a commodity than before.

And contributing code isn't all that's valuable in OSS. Bug/UX reports and feature ideas are really valuable, more valuable now than code IMO.

Even before LLMs, I was much more likely to report an issue to an project if it was open source and I could go look at the code and confirm what's happening. Reporting a bug w/o this feels like wasting my time. Without source visibility, I'm usually inclined to just stop using the software (e.g. Microsoft products, or even "freeware"). With code viz, I can confidently report a bug with some sense of what the fix might entail, how long it might take, what my expectations for a fix might be.

- Disable public pull requests.

- Require people to open an issue or discussion. Issues and discussions should have stated length/quality parameters. If an issue is a wall of Claude-text, users should be prepared for this text to be automatically summarized into plain language. If you don't want your Claude-text to be machine-turned into something human-consumable, the onus is on you to post human text up front.

- PRs are only drafted once approved in issue or discussion

I'm wondering if this is a tractable approach that yields results. I've seen references to a few projects trying something like this. Would be nice to hear folks experience.

it's still there. I still don't totally grok why I can't use all my tokens on Sonnet if I want to... maybe that signals something?

I know some people who moved to Delaware beaches and they told me that there the local news is just folks talking about government administration stuff, which was pretty mind-blowing to me. I would like to check this out.