Recent studies suggest that well-known OSS projects struggle to find the needed workforce to continue evolving—in part because external developers fail to overcome their first contribution barriers. In this paper, we investigate how and why quasi-contributors (external developers who did not succeed in getting their contributions accepted to an OSS project) fail. To achieve our goal, we collected data from 21 popular, non-trivial GitHub projects, identified quasi-contributors, and analyzed their pull-requests. In addition, we conducted surveys with quasi-contributors, and projects’ integrators, to understand their perceptions about nonacceptance. We found 10,099 quasi-contributors — about 70% of the total actual contributors — that submitted 12,367 nonaccepted pull-requests. In five projects, we found more quasi-contributors than actual contributors. About one-third of the developers who took our survey disagreed with the nonacceptance, and around 30% declared the nonacceptance demotivated or prevented them from placing another pull-request. The main reasons for pull-request nonacceptance from the quasi-contributors’ perspective were “superseded/duplicated pull-request” and “mismatch between developer’s and team’s vision/opinion.” A manual analysis of a representative sample of 263 pull-requests corroborated with this finding. We also found reasons related to the relationship with the community and lack of experience or commitment from the quasi-contributors. This empirical study is particularly relevant to those interested in fostering developers’ participation and retention in OSS communities.