One theory may be that outsiders contribute trivial fixes, which are virtually assured to have a 100% acceptance rate by communities that wish to expand. Even if the trivial fix is slightly broken the maintainer can patch it up after the merge and give the contributor a sense of achievement by accepting their changes verbatim. However, I have intentionally declined pull requests on non-trivial topics from regular contributors for various reasons, including when they offer two solutions to an issue and put them up as two separate pull requests for review.
I have never heard anyone claim that a 100% pull request acceptance rate is a special thing btw. Once you get deeper into projects you realise that some pull requests were good in theory, but for the greater good they need to be rejected in favour of alternatives. The numbers may be there in this paper, but they don't currently imply causality IMO. Cheers, Peter On 12 February 2016 at 08:30, Jonathan Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: > Thought I'd pass this along. Haven't read the whole article yet, but it > sounds fascinating. > > TL;DR: Looks like contributions by women are accepted more often than those > by men, but only if the project leader doesn't know the pull request is > coming from a woman. > > Excellent summary: > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/data-analysis-of-github-contributions-reveals-unexpected-gender-bias/ > > Preprint: https://peerj.com/preprints/1733v1/ > > Note: this work has not yet been peer-reviewed. > > J > > -- > Jonathan T. Morgan > Senior Design Researcher > Wikimedia Foundation > User:Jmorgan (WMF) > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
