This would be ideal, but in my experience evaluating some open source libraries, they were clearly works in progress or abandoned. I think people had good intentions when putting the stuff out there.

Maybe because github is free for public open source, stuff gets put out there before its polished?

> Why would you release something to the public and put your name on it if it's lazily done?

No software is perfect. It has either no features in it or has bugs. The assholes will either demand to get the missing features added or the bugs fixed.

Isn't the whole point of Open Sourcing your stuff, is so that others can contribute to it if they so desire?

Whether or not something is "lazily done" is besides the point. The point is - they produced _something_, and the consumer did not. If you see something which you think could be done in a better way, wouldn't a better use of your time be spent issuing a pull request with your suggested improvement, rather than whining that "it was lazily done" ?