GitHub Sponsors
This is NOT about helping us out, fellow maintainer-kids, it&#x27;s about owning the playground and burning the forest.<p>This fee structure is predatory af &amp; straight outta amazon&#x27;s playbook. (2x matching funds and all fees waived for first year?[1])<p>There has been an ecosystem. If this was about anything except market capture through burning VC&#x2F;reserve funding, GitHub would have engaged in existing nacent and experimental spaces. They haven&#x27;t: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;opencollective.com&#x2F;github" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;opencollective.com&#x2F;github</a><p>If a company is truly trying to be embody open culture, they support and and-yes existing projects as step 1. Case in point: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;words.steveklabnik.com&#x2F;why-im-partnering-with-balanced" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;words.steveklabnik.com&#x2F;why-im-partnering-with-balanc...</a><p>If we have a problem or idea for OpenCollective&#x2F;Liberapay&#x2F;etc, the staff live on open chat rooms -- the github issue queues are public -- the code is interrogable by the curious and adventurous. With GitHub, we get bupkis. Or wait, we get coaxed into a one-on-one email support channel where we can&#x27;t see one another, speak together, nor find fellow travellers. Or we get the unofficial wailing wall that is <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;isaacs&#x2F;github" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;isaacs&#x2F;github</a><p>Really disappointed in the lack of critical reflection from technologists. This is not good for us as executed.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;help.github.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;articles&#x2F;about-github-sponsors#about-the-github-sponsors-matching-fund" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;help.github.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;articles&#x2F;about-github-sponsors#ab...</a>