Can't believe they didn't call it VouchDB.

Makes sense, it feels like this just codifies a lot of implicit standards wrt OSS contribution which is great to see. I do wonder if we'll ever see a tangible "reputation" metric used for contribs, or if it'd even be useful at all. Seems like the core tension now is just the ease of pumping out slop vs the responsibility of ownership of code/consideration for project maintainers.

Another way to solve this is how Linux organizes. Tree structure where lower branches vet patches and forward them up when ready

feels very micromanagement-ish

I don't know if this is the right solution, but I appreciate the direction. It's clear that AI slop is trading on people's good names and network reputation. Poisoning the well. The dead internet is here. In multiple domains people are looking for a solution to "are you someone/something worthy of my emotional investment." I don't think code can be held to be fully AI-free, but we need a way to check that they are empathy-full.

Is what?

I really like this...I've been trying to come up with a similar system, not necessarily for just gh, but for comms in general. And with groups so e.g. someone from my group can trust someone in the group of a someone I trust. And from there it would be neat to add voting...so someone requires a number of votes before they can be trusted.

Is this the return of Advogato?

> Who and how someone is vouched or denounced is left entirely up to the project integrating the system.

Feels like making a messaging app but "how messages are delivered and to whom is left to the user to implement".

I think "who and how someone is vouched" is like 99.99% of the problem and they haven't tried to solve it so it's hard to see how much value there is here. (And tbh I doubt you really can solve this problem in a way that doesn't suck.)