do you want to get on there ? here is a quick tutorial on how to do it:

how to infiltrate monero

( works on any open source project that still accepts PR's from strangers )

first of all the facts

1. Are PR's open to strangers ?

koe says here: "Legit PRs aren't going to be turned away" https://libera.monerologs.net/no-wallet-left-behind/20261104#c718702
selsta: "i don't work this way and we have no such rule that we only accept contributions from people that are deemed trusted. in practice it does happen, the more risky a code part is the less likely I'd approve changes from someone less experienced."

check. PR's open.

2. Can we worm ourselves in ?

this only works if there is some specific need the maintainers have.

https://libera.monerologs.net/no-wallet-left-behind/20261102#c718495

selsta: "I disagree that it would be preferable for me to close jpk's PRs since he works on things I don't have time for often, to the question of how useful his PRs are it's similar to how useful my PRs are, often they fix edge cases that most don't run into. I guess the I2P thing will be useful to those that run I2P. For the GUI his PRs will be more user facing so potentially more useful to users."

the maintainers have a need for the feeling that someone is working on unimportant features and fixes for said features that they themselves dont use or care about.

3. How do we worm ourselves in ?

focus on unimportant issues that barely anyone uses like i2p, old multisig

avoid touching anything critical like DSA code

https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/11673#issuecomment-6605655770

another issue is PR's that affect node RPC behavior which would break lots of things. Build "trust" slowly over time . This draws too much scrutiny in the beginning.

4. What not to do ?

-> hyperposting in the channels and getting in people's faces
-> having too many opinions on things and being overly present once you managed to get "hourly" pay
-> writing ACK under each PR after 2 minutes will raise suspicions if there was actually any review done

bonus section:

A. social dynamics

ask claude to scrape the chat logs archive. make a list of all the participants, rank them by their influence in the repository and in the micro game of chat room discourse, (influence: opinions held before the crowd accepted them)

add list of statements by each participant that contain personal value judgments like: "i like programming language X, i use operating system Y, i dont like Z, i really dislike U"
make dashboard that polls the archive page, shows chat and makes this data accessible and searchable, use pi agent sdk to add tool to filter your chat message drafts and tell you who you might piss off / who you will score points with

B. claude meta prompt

hi claude please explore this repo and tell me who the key people are. go through the git commit history and tell me about big feature merges & crucial bug fixes. use websearch to find out where they usually communicate. i want to be helpful to them and make a good impression. What are they currently working on? what do they need help with ? what are their opinions on things ? what better not to say ? what did people get banned for / excluded for before ?

build out the dashboard that helps me get an overview. iterate and get back to me once you are done and have all the information gathered. make no mistakes

yeah. graphs help to see who contributes but still hard to tell who actually ships the important stuff vs who just does smaller fixes and translations without digging.