There's a really good lesson in here. This is a example example of the kind of project that a developer will not want to work on. I've found that three factors affect how attracted developers are to a project:<p>1) How much effort the originator put in to defining the product.<p>2) How competent the originator appears to be (lack of technical competence can be offset by willingness to research and learn on one's own, as well as good quality presentation).<p>3) How well a project aligns with the developer's own interest.<p>By the numbers:<p>1) This is a bare minimum effort. No developer who looks at this project will come away with the impression that you're serious about this, because you've done 10 minutes worth of work.<p>2) You have a Github account, so that means you're probably a developer as well, so you get points for technical knowledge. The README.md is well formatted and presents a pretty clear end-goal, so you're in good shape here.<p>3) I think a lot of developers would find this project interesting. Node.js is hot right now, so there is a lot of interest, even if a Node runtime for a web browser isn't entirely pragmatic, it is at least interesting.<p>So based on the responses here, it looks like you're getting hammered over the first criteria. Unfortunately, that's probably the most important one. No one wants to jump on board a project where the project originator isn't vested. There's very little keeping you from walking away from this as soon as things get rolling, then your name is on the repo and everyone who has done the work is left to languish in the background. "Credit" is a significant motivating factor in open source development.<p>Put some work in, then resubmit. I'm willing to bet you'd get a much better response.
I prefer node-webkit to Chrome's Packaged Apps anyway.<p><a href="https://github.com/rogerwang/node-webkit" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/rogerwang/node-webkit</a>