On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:48:27AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On 14-06-13 23:24, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > > Right, but this leads to one of two things: > > > > - No money is shared with dependencies (leading to people flocking to > > awesomewm, gnome, kde, chrome, wine, apache2, etc) > > > > - Money is shared with dependencies (leading to people flocking to > > gcc, linux, libc6) > > Which is a problem, why? Because, given a naive implementation, people could latch on and feed off all the money trickling in without doing work. Unless you want to "rate" people in Debian, which I think is a very bad idea. Oh you? You're worth 1%. You? Oh, you get nothing. Kbai. > - The maintainer(s) decide to put all the money in a fund that is used > for things like meetings among the package's maintainers. In other > words, there is no direct financial benefit to be had, and thus I > don't expect people to be interested in joining purely for financial > benefit. This would be a nice result of this system. Very very nice. I would love if donations for a package went to a single discretionary fund to help them with development. Things like: - going to upstream development sprints - meeting in a central location for a sprint - [other brilliant ideas here] > - The maintainer(s) set up some complex scheme by which financial > benefit is equally distributed among contributors based on size of I think this is a can of worms we should very much avoid. [..] > Unless you think money is dirty, I don't see how any of this would > involve "flocking" in a problematic manner. I don't think it's dirty, but it distorts views. When the person next to you doing less work than you is making $MONEY, and you're not, you don't want to work on $THING anymore. > Am I missing something? No, just not looking in the same places as me. > If/when this were to happen in Debian, I think it would be fair to kick > said developer out of the project, on the basis of them violating the > "do not stand in the way" rule of constitution §2.1.1. He claimed he'd not stand in the way of anyone writing their own patch, and I don't think you could claim not writing the patch is standing in the way, so I think this doesn't apply. It's shady, but I don't think we have a mechinism for enforcing people don't do this. Having a big-professional system where you say "Oh, just apt-donate me $10 usd and I'll release this patch", people would believe this is how things work. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature