Seems a bit dangerous to be using the automatic third level domain of github in this way. This is not the first time I've thought a project was endorsed by github when it was not.

I spent a couple of minutes drafting and redrafting a disagree reply but actually I agree with you in regards to the title of this submission. The use of githubs subdomain is fine because everyone one does that for their little project (even big projects like twitter bootstrap). The title on the other hand implies a github endorsed project which its actually not, I can understand where you are coming from.

wow... I too thought this was Github endorsed. I recall reading about the referenced blog post on HN some time ago. The comments suggested they contact Github. And then a link appeared to giving.github.com. I guess I just assumed it was something Github had green-lighted. I guess it is not. :/

Thought so too, for a moment - but on second thought, GH set the UX bar for their add-on projects quite a bit higher (as may be observed e.g. here http://hubot.github.com/).

You can tell just by looking at the website. No designer at Github would have approved this.

By including ".github.com" in the name, the project is, to me, trying to parade itself as being part of github or affiliated in some way. They're using github's name as an appeal to authority. It's a neat project, but needs a better name.

You must be confused by every blog on Github then.

Yeah, not particularly. Most of the ones I've seen (again, casual Github user) are not trying to use .github.com in the name of their site (regardless of address). Here, the project is named, "giving.github.com," implying Github affiliation. http://square.github.com/cubism is clearly branded as Square, not square.github.com. There's a big difference.

That was a warning light for me, yet I still thought it was coming from github. Well, it seems it does not come from github. Bad behavior.

Edit: Now, that I think of it, copy was a second red light, yet I still thought it was coming from github. It only shows how good a perception github as a company has.

This is the first time I've thought a site hosted on *.github.com was a github project, but I did think that for a second. I'm guessing because of <h1>giving.github.com</h1>. Had it been just <h1>Giving</h1>, suspect wouldn't have thought that for even an instant, despite the domain. I'll chalk this up to poor perception on my part.

Separately, interesting that (IIUC) this project allows donors and donees to choose whether they're willing to grant/accept MIT/AGPL. If project is successful will be interesting to see how often each choice gets made. But I don't think it is explained all that clearly on ... giving.github.com :)

Yikes! I thought that as well. Due to my screen resolution, the "not affiliated nor endorsed by the company github in any way" disclaimer was the only part of the page that wasn't visible without scrolling.

Not only that, it's in a small light colour text on a white background. It almost seems intentional to swing it this way.

Wow I thought this too. :(

(author)

Thank you all for looking; I hope you come back occasionally, take a look at the open issues and such!

I was really surprised by the whole complaints about name thing, and I've made changes as explained here: http://williamedwardscoder.tumblr.com/post/23092615385/givin...

Issues of the domain name aside, I think the entire project is a bit 'fuzzy' in that the kinds of problems that will be posted here aren't easily lent to this sort of 'spare time' coding.

Working on someone else's project is something that eats a LOT of time. Even small projects inevitably end up taking weeks, months, or years.

If you're getting paid or if it's a personal passion then it tends to get done very quickly. Anything else tends to be regulated to release-date-pushing hell.

I love the idea, but why restrict it to only contributions of MIT or Aferro GPL licensed code? This prevents potential contributions, which goes against the ultimate goal of helping charities, scientists, and engineers.

You get the suggested two licenses at opposite ends of the spectrum. And if you go name something in-between, I'm sure nobody will blink.

So what is being stopped?

Original Discussion from it's first appearance on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3906143

Also, blog post from presumably the author about how the idea hadn't really taken off: http://williamedwardscoder.tumblr.com/post/21266287229/givin...

and discussion of said post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3852413

and then this happened: http://williamedwardscoder.tumblr.com/post/22130068036/givin... :)

I'm all for the idea of giving away programming time to charity.

I build one website for a charity each year.

But instead of using a market place like this to find a charity, I find it's a bit more rewarding to network through family and friends to find a charity you can help that you have a more personal connection to.

Awesome idea but I'm interested in the execution, have you or anyone done any of these projects before and can speak on how it works with these charities?

If a tenth of the cool projects on github were endorsed by Github, github would be a failure.

Or at least it would be a mere shadow of its insane awesomeness.

@kneath would have never let that page design fly.