[haiku-inc] Re: Updating the donat-o-meter...
- From: Karl vom Dorff <karlvd@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-inc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:49:15 -0400
Well the fact is, Haiku Inc. is sitting on ~$25,000 right now. More could
be done. If I had it my way, I'd open four bounties for $5000 (each based
on single GSOC projects that were not completed, or not taken). Even
contract work; as it is now, the money just sits there. I would bet anyone
on this list $500 (and contribute it to Haiku Inc.) that at least one
project would be applied for within 6 months if they were posted to Haiku's
front page.
Nobody even knew there was an extra $10,000 in the pot for half a year.
Haiku just gets older and more irrelevant, but Haiku Inc. could do more to
expedite development. Sorry, that's just how I see it.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 4:46 PM, pulkomandy <pulkomandy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> > Yes. that is part of the problem with Haiku's 'open-ended' contracts. Not
> > with bounties. They are a calculated risk, and that's obvious. So what?
> > Apparently there are enough people willing to take an all or nothing risk
> > when they can see the reward. They know the consequences before taking it
> > on, they are big boys. They are two different models and each had their
> > success.
>
> Fine for them. I already mentionned that Bountysource is an already
> existing platform to use that model. Should Haiku, Inc. become a second
> one and spend time replicating the infrastructure? I don't think so.
> Should the Haiku Project advertise the possibility of using Bountysource
> more? Maybe, if there are people willing to work that way. Haikuware
> could be used for this as it was the case in the past, we can say this
> worked well and made everone happy.
>
> That's my point here, not that one or another funding way is superior,
> but that Haiku, Inc does what it does well, and that the other funding
> ways need not be hosted under the same umbrella.
>
> >
> > Ingo's argument is a poor one. Of course the bounties were a motivating
> > factor. If you look, for example, at when certain bounties started and
> the
> > flurry of commits thereafter, then of course they motivate. Look how many
> > commits Marcus Overhagen has made in the last years. In three weeks he
> > completed the SATA bounty; so obviously they motivate. The same goes for
> > Haiku's contracts. Money is the motivating factor - if Adrien weren't
> > funded with his work on the webkit, he obviously wouldn't/couldn't commit
> > as much as he now does.
>
> I would have as much motivation (I'm doing this work because Haiku is my
> main system and I want it to work better). But I would have less time to
> spend on it because I would need to get a job in parallel. It's not a
> problem of motivation for me, it's a problem of allocating more time. My
> motivation is even enough to accept the low hourly rate.
>
> This is only my feeling as one developer, other may disagree and prefer
> other solutions. But in my case, the higher risk put on my shoulders for
> a bounty based system would make me request a higher amount of money for
> the same feature set. It would put me under more pressure which is not
> the right way to motivate me. As a result I think the bounties work for
> sporadic/occasional work for devs who also have a real job. I would
> appreciate them if I was in that case, but I wouldn't risk earning money
> solely as a bounty hunter, that's too unstable of a job for me. Unless
> the bounties are very high, and reaching one means I get enough money to
> be able to risk missing the next one and still be able to pay my bills.
>
> >
> > Listen, I didn't want this to start another flame war. I was just
> > suggesting what I thought felt might help or work.
>
> This is not a flame war - sorry if my writing reads as agressive, it's
> not meant to be. I'm only expressing my opinion as a developer, which is
> only mine, and is likely different from what others would think about
> this.
>
> --
> Adrien.
>
>
--
Karl vom Dorff
BScH Biology (German Minor)
numbdesign.com
Other related posts:
