I think you missed the point, and didn't actually read (or, more charitably, understand) what the author said. Your last sentence is actually a good summary of the article!
The problem is when someone wants to contribute primarily because they think it will be good for their resume, or even just for a more amorphous "I feel like I should give back" type reason. These sorts of motivations often result in contributions that end up being a drag on a maintainer's time, with little upside. People coming at it from this angle usually don't become dedicated contributors who grow and improve over time. They become a time and energy sink.
I've unfortunately witnessed this firsthand many times in my 20+ years of open source involvement.
It's more that I don't agree with what he considers the four or so proper ways to contribute. I also know of longstanding and highly valued contributors who started out in ways the author disapproves of.
why are we inspecting the intentions of the contributor so much? Why do we need to show this piousness in our reasons to get a PR merged? Don't you see the unnecessary barrier here?
Edit: Changed author to contributor as it can be confused as the author of the article.
The problem is when someone wants to contribute primarily because they think it will be good for their resume, or even just for a more amorphous "I feel like I should give back" type reason. These sorts of motivations often result in contributions that end up being a drag on a maintainer's time, with little upside. People coming at it from this angle usually don't become dedicated contributors who grow and improve over time. They become a time and energy sink.
I've unfortunately witnessed this firsthand many times in my 20+ years of open source involvement.