Current Prototype Setup
Our current setup is intentionally minimal, designed as a proof-of-concept to test the viability of this approach and gather user feedback. Below are the key steps involved in the current evaluation process:
- Step 1: Contributors upload their files and specify the type of contribution they have made (e.g., code changes, documentation, or design improvements).
- Step 2: Basic automated tools, if applicable, perform rudimentary checks on the uploaded files (e.g., linting or format validation for code contributions).
- Step 3: Project maintainers manually review the contributions using a simple checklist to ensure quality and relevance.
- Step 4: Contributors receive qualitative feedback based on the manual review and automated checks, helping them understand areas for improvement.
While this setup is limited in scope, its primary purpose is to introduce the idea of contribution evaluations, test the concept, and identify opportunities for improvement. Your feedback during this phase is invaluable in shaping the next iteration.
The Next Step in Contribution Evaluation
Learn how contributions are evaluated, from submission to recognition.
Contributors upload their files to the platform, which could range from code to documentation or design assets.
Submit File
Contributors specify the nature of their input (e.g., code, documentation, or design) during submission.
Specify Contribution Type
Contributions undergo automated evaluation (e.g., Pylint for Python) and manual review for quality and relevance.
Automated and Manual Checks
After aggregating automated checks and manual reviews, badges are assigned based on contribution quality (e.g., Gold, Silver, Bronze).
Badge Assignment
Contributors collect badges over time, creating a portfolio of their efforts. These badges can be shared or showcased for professional opportunities.
Stack Your Badges
At Contribank, we are actively developing the next iteration of our evaluation process to make it more robust, fair, and insightful. This approach incorporates both automated checks and manual reviews, ensuring every contribution is assessed holistically. Our aim is to provide contributors with clear, actionable feedback while empowering maintainers to manage contributions efficiently without undue burden or bias.
Maintainers play a critical role in this process. To ensure fairness and transparency, we’re working on introducing mechanisms that balance their decision-making power with a democratic review system, where contributors and other stakeholders can provide inputs or flag issues when necessary. This collaborative approach aims to minimize potential power imbalances and foster a more inclusive evaluation environment.
We value feedback and suggestions from our users on this upcoming process. Your insights will help us refine the system to better meet the needs of both contributors and maintainers, ensuring it remains scalable and impactful.
The Future of Contribution Evaluation
Our vision is to create a robust, scalable evaluation system that empowers contributors while maintaining fairness and transparency. Here are some of our long-term goals:
- Advanced Automation: Implementing machine learning models for real-time feedback on code quality, performance, and relevance.
- Reputation System: Introducing a reputation system for contributors and maintainers to ensure accountability and transparency.
- Scalability: Expanding support for more languages, file types, and industries, making the platform accessible to diverse projects.
- Collaborations: Building partnerships with companies and organizations to integrate real-world projects and challenges.
With these improvements, Contribank aims to redefine how contributions are evaluated, recognized, and leveraged in the professional world.