The contributors to flutter are Google employees in the Dart team which is a HUGE team. They need that many people because the architecture of their VM is pretty complicated (not a very good sign).
It makes more sense to compare us to a project that was shorter lived but highly visible and highly promoted by Oracle/Xamarin: https://github.com/robovm/robovm/graphs/contributors Our numbers would have been better had we not worked on Google Code until it was shutdown. We should have been on github sooner. Despite all of the people who work on Flutter they don't have a fraction of the API/library support that we already have with the limited resources at our disposal. Most open source projects don't get a lot of 3rd party contributions, especially complex projects (e.g. us). To me the code contribution aspect isn't a huge deal. I care far more about bug reports, questions & community advocacy all of which could also use improvement. This isn't the first thread that mentioned this. We made a lot of attempts in the past to increase community engagement and most of them weren't very successful. Even basic things like being active on reddit/other sites or writing an article in medium etc. Most developers don't even submit their app to the gallery... I know the head of the flutter team has personal calls with developers to encourage them to write about the platform. You can literally see the marketing copy he helps them insert into their posts. Unfortunately we don't have the ability to do that. About giving bonuses to contribution we did exactly that when we launched. We offered a free basic subscription for code contribution & for people who shared information in social networks to help promote our brand. This didn't result in anything. Worse, it created a bad incentive for contribution that triggered bad contributions with the purpose of getting a free subscription. This further creates a bad incentive by putting a $ sign on the work community developers do... (I don't know if you read Freakonomics but it has a wonderful explanation on the nuances of negative incentives). I think the main value of contribution should be the contribution itself & being a part of the community. If we offer money (or equivalent) we devalue the work which is arguably worth more. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CodenameOne Discussions" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/codenameone-discussions. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/codenameone-discussions/64300bc2-f651-477c-aa15-f62f5ed2de16%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
