Ask Your Queries Here

[MastanSayyad]

Hi @inkerton

Sorry to disappoint you!
But May I know the reason of spamming in issues? I get that you are disappointed with the repo and about closing your issue but spamming with frustration is not gonna help you! We started github discussion for some reason, we have discord server for some reason, so that when you have query or when you get disappointed with something then you can ask here promptly in profffesional manner

I would like to help you here

This is called spamming of issues!! Which violets the guidelines and the code of conduct of the repository and this program, raising multiple issues at the same time with intent of gaining more assigned issue is not what we promote through this program

You have violated the guidelines which are given clearly by the PA @pankaj-bind!

If you go to the real open source project you cant do such things, open source is all about transparency and pateince

---

Here is the reasoning for you, There is no problem with your issues or algorithms instead it is an issue with the approach and fail to follow the guidelines which leaded to this conversation. you have to respect the Project admins, Mentors, your fellow contributors and the Program itself. we dont get a platform to showcase your skills all the time, instead of making the most of it, you are creating a negative impression with such behaviour

Regarding rubbish behaviour by the PA, then NO its not, the PA has set the clear guidlines already

I Hope This Resolves All Your Queries!

If you have further doubts and questions feel free to ask here, we can discuss without interferring the other participants!

Read these: GSSOC Guidelines

Thank You!

[inkerton]

Then H e could have assigned 3 since max limit is 3 and closed other but he closed all stating them as unnecessary. The issue itself were not unecessary even if the PA is closing my issue based on guidelines then he should have stated that as the reason and assigned me 3 issues. @MastanSayyad Please tell the PA to reopen 3 issues. let the rest be closed .

I have also put it in doubts section on discord and talked to 2 mentors. One of them tagged you also ig. Stating the issues as unnecessary is not very nice from the PAs point also. I donot have any assigned issue on this repo I never opened an issue before if we have been given a limit of 3 issues then should the PA need to close all of them .

[inkerton]

@MastanSayyad I also didnot exceed the 200 point limit on this repo so I request to reopen 3 of my issues for now.

[MastanSayyad]

Read this

Violation of guidelines will result in strict actions, as outlined by the PA in the issue template. It was your responsibility to read and understand these guidelines before raising issues.

Intent matters, @inkerton. If the intention was to genuinely assist the PA with contributions, it’s understandable. However, raising multiple issues with the primary intent of gaining points is not acceptable. instead you chose to spam more comments in those repo saying PA as Rubbish behaviour, This is not the way we talk on a public platform

You could have created a new issue, apologized for the behavior, and assured the PA that you missed the guidelines previously but will adhere to them going forward. This will prevent any similar misunderstandings in the future.

[inkerton]

If he had stated the reason properly I would have closed my issues myself. The point was he closed 13 issues stating them as unnecessary. And I did ask him

I have worked hard during this month and If i overlooked the guidelines by mistake the PA could have told me the reason. I have studied not the python ML but the actual statistical mathematics behind those algos. I am so confident in ML I knew I could do all those issues in a single day. But if The PA is busy enough to not state the actual reason and just dismiss those issues as unnecessary then I donot wish to make any contribution to this repo now. I have most of my PRs as technical. I do not like documentation issues but I raised them cuz they were within my scope.

I did overlook the guidelines but I still do not think closing issues without any reasoning is correct. I am not after points and won't be making any PRs to this repo.

[mehul-m-prajapati]

@MastanSayyad : It’s impressive how they've turned collaboration into a cutthroat competition. They’ve redefined “working together” into “let’s see who can outdo the other!”

https://github.com/GDSC-RCCIIT/gdg-website/issues

[shubhagarwal1]

@MastanSayyad : It’s impressive how they've turned collaboration into a cutthroat competition. They’ve redefined “working together” into “let’s see who can outdo the other!”

https://github.com/GDSC-RCCIIT/gdg-website/issues

Hey @mehul-m-prajapati
Thank you for defining collaboration in such a unique way—it certainly provides fresh perspective! That said, I’d like to focus on the contributions we’ve already made in the repository. As you know, this project is being built from the ground up, and with the deadline approaching, we’re in a crucial phase where pushing forward is essential.

While it may seem like a competitive push, I see this as an opportunity for us to elevate the project by refining the website's look and functionality. My primary goal is to make this platform visually compelling and user-friendly, which is why I’m dedicated to this improvement. I’d also love to showcase the differences between the initial version and the progress we’ve achieved so far—there’s a significant transformation taking shape.

Although there are still issues to address, as expected in the early stages, we’re all contributing with the vision of making this website truly stand out. I appreciate everyone’s efforts as we work together to make this happen.

[Shariq2003]

@mehul-m-prajapati, I’d like to highlight the progress made since the start of this project. From day one, we've worked diligently to elevate this project—not simply for points, but to truly bring it to the next level.

If you review the project’s initial phase and compare it with the current state, the transformation is substantial. We’ve enhanced it by introducing features like AI integration, building API endpoints, and refining pages throughout. Our collective contributions have significantly shaped this project.

Could you help clarify what collaboration truly means in the context of GSSOC? My understanding is that GSSOC fosters skill improvement and project enhancement through teamwork among developers. If there's a different perspective, I’d appreciate hearing it.

Absolutely Nothing on day 1....................................................................................................

Now..............

And also look at all the pages, we have added AI Integration, Build APIs Endpoints, etc..............and What else we have added................

[MastanSayyad]

While the contributions are impressive and Project Admin (PA) is assigning issues it's concerning multiple PRs within a minimal time gap. This raises questions about the intention and quality of contributions, as the emphasis seems to be on quantity rather than meaningful improvements to the project. I won’t even get started on the sheer volume of issues created.

@Shariq2003 You already have plenty of issues pending. What was the need to create more? Other repositories remain underutilized.

---

@shubhagarwal1 You have over ten issues still open, yet you continue creating new ones. This feels excessive, particularly considering the lack of progress in other repositories.

---

@inkerton You claimed not to be motivated by points, yet the 30+ open issues you’ve created suggest otherwise. Isn’t this a bit unfair to others?

---

@shubhagarwal1, @inkerton, and @Shariq2003 Try to act this way on a real open-source project or within an established organization. This type of behavior reflects poorly on contributors and is likely why our developers sometimes struggle to gain acceptance in international open-source communities. This program has set a guideline of creating a maximum of 3-5 issues per repo, more only if previous ones are completed. It’s disheartening to see this directive ignored.

If your intention is truly to contribute to open source, this spamming behavior wouldn't be happening. Many of these issues relate to superficial redesigns or enhancements, often duplicating existing issues. Chasing issues purely for assignment, rather than quality contributions, is like reserving a seat on a train with a handkerchief or bag just to reserve seats.

While your intensions were may be of contributing but be true to yourself. if it is about contributing more into the open source then the reduction of points from minimal (minimal != no. of lines) changed PR would never affect you or the desperation for merging your open PRs while you already have multiple PRs merged with high points!

The PA have missed setting stricter guidelines, but maintaining contribution integrity is up to each of you. Prioritize quality over quantity. The attitude should be: I'm here to learn and enhance the project, not I’m here to maximize my score. Reviewing issues as they’re completed, rather than all at once, aligns more closely with the spirit of open source. This spamming reflects a sense of desperation, not creativity or meaningful contribution.

Remember, “Creation will never happen in a state of desperation.”

I’ll be re-evaluating the top 5 to uphold integrity on the leaderboard. I hope everyone will cooperate in ensuring fair contributions.

[Shariq2003]

@MastanSayyad sir, I wanted to address a concern about the practice of working within a single repository, raising multiple issues, and merging multiple PRs, which I understand is not in line with the guidelines. However, there’s a particular person (I won’t mention names, but you can check) who has been working on a single repo from the start, with over 75 PRs merged in a relatively short time. This number is quite significant for a single repo, yet the PA appears to prioritize only this one contributor over others, leaving other repositories underutilized and seemingly stagnant, which raises concerns, especially considering the limited progress in these other repositories.

I’d also like to highlight that, as top contributors, we face considerable scrutiny. Despite our hard work, our voices often go unheard, and we now face allegations of prioritizing quantity over quality in our contributions. This feels unjust. You can review all of our PRs; I’ve even tagged you in some of mine for reference.

Additionally, we’ve faced level deductions due to harsh reviews, which significantly impacted our points. We understand that maintaining balance is important and have taken this as a challenge. We dedicate ourselves fully, day and night, to contributing meaningfully. However, constant discouragement from senior members, focusing only on the quantity debate rather than acknowledging our learning and effort, feels unfair.

[shubhagarwal1]

Hey @MastanSayyad
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I completely understand and respect the importance of maintaining integrity and quality in open-source contributions.

Our main aim has always been to learn and genuinely enhance the project, but scoring and maintaining a position on the leaderboard is also part of this program. We’ve made sure that each of our PRs meets quality standards, even as we strive to balance our contributions with the scoring structure in mind, also recent deductions in points have already scored us down, we are just focusing on recovery here.
We are abel to focus on this part as we know we can do this we are have skills to prove ourselves.
Mastan you as being contributor realilses how tough it is to find meaningful and active repos, which actully align to your tech stack and then making contributions to the website. Mastan we have very few time remaing in completing the challenge and so just pushing ourselves hard, this challange has bought a zeel of thrill that pushes me hard each day to work and learn new things, i have never ever scored such a streak on github like this before, all thanks to GSsOc, also this is a crazy opportunity for me to learn and explore new areas of technology.

I’m working on building this site with genuine spirit and enthusiasm, aiming to make it something great. Both @Shariq2003, @inkerton, and I have dedicated considerable time to this repo, and I’d kindly ask that our efforts not be dismissed. I’ve been actively contributing to this repository for the past 4-5 days; prior to that, I wasn’t aware of its existence. In our search for new repositories to contribute to, we found this one and dove in.

Many contributors who joined other repositories from day one have been following similar practices, creating and getting assigned multiple issues at once. While this technically diverges from the guidelines, we respected it as part of their commitment and never raised a complaint. We truly appreciate everyone’s contributions and see the program as a valuable learning opportunity, with no complaints on our end.

Thank you, @MastanSayyad, for handling everything so well. I really appreciate your efforts in managing the program.

I’ll take your feedback to heart, focusing on depth and meaningful contributions moving forward. Thanks again for your guidance—I look forward to continuing to work together in a way that truly reflects the spirit of open source

[MastanSayyad]

@shubhagarwal1 @Shariq2003

The contributions are indeed valuable, but it’s clear that many of these issues are being created mainly to accumulate points. When contributors already have multiple open and assigned issues, creating more without completing the existing ones appears to be a form of "reserved spamming."

The end of the program doesn’t justify this surge of issues in a single day, especially in a repository where getting assignments is relatively easy.
regarding harsh review then stop considering yourself as a part of this, We are reviewing all contributors and the number deduction is equal to the count of PRs, if your PR counts are in multiples then it is understandable why most the points have been deducted, I review every code line by line, if you have concern about any PR feel free to justify it!

Imagine if all contributors started doing this across all repositories—such practices do not align with the principles of open source. Top contributors are expected to maintain a certain standard, and we share data about top contributors with our hiring partners. PRs created in this way would likely not be considered true open-source contributions by those partners.

Please complete or close your existing issues before creating new ones. In any single repository, an unusually high volume of issues and PRs over a few days can be considered spam, regardless of the intentions. If the goal is genuine contribution, these limitations shouldn’t be a concern.

And I have reviewed the contributor who you have mentioned @Shariq2003 instead of seeing the number of PRs check the reviews too, he was a rank 2 before but now he is rank 3, as said I'll be re-evaluating all top contributors again. In the meantime I expect co-operation with completing or closing your existing issues, after that you are free to raise issues again.

[inkerton]

@MastanSayyad I do not know if read all the issues and comments but the PA rarely assigns us more than 3 issues we guys just work hard and fast so we have been able to work on many @shubhagarwal1 @Shariq2003 both of them shariq and I have had many conflicting issues raised we talk them out between ourselves we never raised the same issue or stepped on each other. We are familiar with the project more than anyone and why don't you look at it as an opportunity for other to grow that we guys are sticking to some projects rather than contributing everywhere . This also shows our personal attachment to the projects.

[MastanSayyad]

As said the Contributions are great indeed, but the number issues raising even tho already assigned ones are pending, then this should not be happen. @inkerton have more than 30 issues pending in two repos all are open.

You can Contribute to any project, which is a good thing but when seen such pattern or spam of issues then the questions should be raise to clarify things.

I request you to complete the existing tasks once then move forward to create new ones, I have already shared you the guidelines once. If all Contributors started doing this just because program is ending then the program has no meaning instead everyone will start bloating the repositories.

I have stated the reasons in above comments, try to do such thing in real open source projects or organizations, SIH winners should follow the guidelines even better than the other Contributors.

[inkerton]

Most of my issues have pr merged but the issues itself are open

[inkerton]

I'll close the ones I can today

[shubhagarwal1]

@MastanSayyad
As you've mentioned, our contributions haven’t compromised quality, and our goal has been to genuinely improve the repository. While it may appear that creating issues as the program ends could suggest a "reservation" approach, our intention has been to outline specific areas of improvement for the repository, not to hold back work from others. We’ve always welcomed other developers to comment on issues and contribute, and the PA has assigned these issues to different contributors accordingly. Our intention was to make it easier for developers to identify needed improvements, saving time and supporting the overall project. Any other interpretation doesn’t reflect our purpose here.

We have taken care to avoid flooding all repositories with unresolved issues, ensuring we complete tasks in a structured way while enhancing this particular repository. If the aim were purely to accumulate contributions, there would be no need for a leaderboard or a backend review process—these exist precisely because quality, intent, and integrity matter. The leaderboard and point system are in place to foster a spirit of healthy competition, motivate contributors, and recognize consistent efforts.
If the aim was simply to accumulate contributions for the sake of numbers, we would see no need for points or leaderboards, instead, there would be a simple self-evaluation system on the backend, with no focus on highlighting standout contributions.

The reality is that a leaderboard exists to recognize not only quantity but also the quality and impact of contributions and I understand without this, contributions would lack accountability and direction. Similarly, if it were solely about numbers, contributors would create issues without clear purpose or meaningful outcomes, flooding repositories with unresolved or vague tasks. However, our goal has been to create structured, valuable issues that can guide contributors in genuinely enhancing the repository, not to "reserve" issues for ourselves.

Mastan bhai, just as you said, "Creation will never happen in a state of desperation." Just as a gardener can’t rush a plant to bloom by pulling on its leaves, meaningful contributions and growth come from steady, thoughtful effort. Similarly, a college race differs from an Olympic race—although we can treat it with that level of dedication and adhere strictly to guidelines, it's important to remember that minor misunderstandings or misperceptions can sometimes paint an unintended picture. But we assure you that creating in desperation was never our intent, our aim has been constructive contribution from the start, ensuring this program reflects the integrity and collaborative spirit it was designed to foster. Creation born from genuine commitment and quality will always stand the test of time.
None of us @Shariq2003, @inkerton and I have raised these many issues in sake of reservations.

[shubhagarwal1]

@MastanSayyad
I understand the points you've raised and appreciate the clarification regarding the expectations for issue and PR management. I'll ensure that all my existing issues are either completed or closed if they don’t align with the guidelines. Moving forward, I’ll also be more mindful of limiting new issues to avoid any perception of spamming.

I understand the importance of maintaining open-source standards, especially given that our contributions are reviewed by hiring partners. I’m committed to upholding these standards and cooperating fully to ensure my contributions meet quality expectations. Thank you for reviewing each PR thoroughly and providing us with constructive feedback

[Shariq2003]

@MastanSayyad
Thank you for highlighting the guidelines for issue and PR management. I appreciate the clarity you provided, and I'll make sure any open issues I have are either completed or closed if they don't align with the standards set. Moving forward, I'll also be more selective in creating new issues to avoid any impression of spamming.

I understand the importance of maintaining high open-source standards, especially with hiring partners reviewing our contributions. I'm committed to meeting these standards and collaborating closely to ensure my contributions reflect the quality expected. Thanks again for the detailed feedback on each PR; it’s been invaluable for my growth.

[shhivam]

I am not part of any GSSoC things but I am inclined to agree with both parties here.

The PA and "true" open source evangelists like @MastanSayyad and @mehul-m-prajapati agree that the contributions have been great but their main concern is number of issues raised by contributors like @shubhagarwal1 @inkerton or others while they already have other open issues.

From reading the thread, the contributors have agreed to open or pick up new issues when they have completed the existing assigned issues so we can hold them to this standard more strictly from now on. Also, there are no GSSoC points won on opening new issues so they don't have any direct incentives to create issues. If 3 people suddenly work on a single project then there are bound to be large number of issues.

To Contributors: please make sure to open high impact issues. "Spelling mistakes" like issues and PRs are most likely spam.

Programs like GSSoC have incentivised the contributors to contribute in large numbers. This is a fault of the incentives. That's why I don't participate in programs like these.
While contributors have an obligation to contribute with their best ability, a non-maintainer "open source champion" doesn't have the right of policing and stalking a particular contributor's work (especially if those contributions were accepted and merged)

[Wahid7852]

I kindof agree with everyone involved here, albeit it was observed how often words such as "inclusive" and "beginner-friendly" were misused. Open-Source development is a community-building and learning with people type of thing.

Beginner repositories out of the GSSoC programme would never entertain things I witnessed above. If a repository allows for submission of mass issues such as seen above then it comes upon the integrity and values of the top contributors to not be into an intense competition for points.

Although commendable efforts were forwarded from GSSoC with regards to making the ecosystem more inclusive, many of the repositories are packed with issues and pull requests which straight away makes it looks like that the top contributors are here just for the farming of points in such repositories and not the actual development of their skill sets.

It is at this point that matters have escalated so much that mentors and administrators of projects have had to place stern measures, sometimes enough to brand certain cases as uncooperative or over-serious.

Although... I quote this "Programs like GSSoC have incentivized the contributors to contribute in large numbers. This is a fault of the incentives. That's why I don't participate in programs like these."
Which is absolutely correct. A prize pool has ruined the sense of contributions between the contributors.

[Wahid7852]

i will just end with this. A top contributor would always be competitive and confident about his skills : p
they would not be scared to contribute in any given repository, or any given position at any given time
a sense of friendly competition comes when the program is beginner friendly, i sense otherwise from here xD

(now now, sorry for being informal)

[techy4shri]

Leaderboard is the final scale in opensource programs like GSSoC and every contributor wants to reach the top. Ideally, a spirit of friendly competition is encouraging and welcomed in a beginner-friendly environment. But currently this race has taken a negative turn.
We see actions which put the core open-source principles at risk and creating a barrier.

Further, use of foul language in case actions are taken against the alleged further create another issue. The lack of respect— this endangers the universal Code of Conduct and mandates a retrospective question: What are we here for?

Because at the end of the day, the aim of open-source is learn with community, build with community, build for the community

[techy4shri]

No matter what, respect is paramount and one must not ever neglect that. Rules exist for a reason and everyone needs to remember that. This is my thought.