Re: Question to Martin: How are your Grants and Paid DPL Proposals Differnt than Dunc-Tanc

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Stefano" == Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> writes:

    Stefano> But I was following up specifically to Sam's point that
    Stefano> "there would be two classes of developers and that
    Stefano> volunteers would be frustrated/disappointed they were not
    Stefano> getting paid" --- with respect to that specific point, who
    Stefano> pays doesn't seem relevant to me.

I disagree.  I actually think a lot of people would be more comfortable
with people being paid by employers than directly for Debian work.  In
one case you're being paid typically for the portion of your work that
overlaps with the employer's mission.  So, for example I bet there are a
lot of people paid by their employers to submit bugs and patches that
fix problems the employer is experiencing..


    Stefano> (And with respect to my other point about employer
    Stefano> influence, the fact that it is not Debian paying makes
    Stefano> things actually *worse*, not better.)

I am not at all sure employer influence is bad or is that much different
than personal preference influence, at least in the cases where people
believe in what their employer is doing.  I think that before we decry
employer influence we should deconstruct it and determine where it is
harmful and where it is helpful.  I don't think the DPL campaign is the
right forum for that.  I'll simply note that people do a lot of good
work because it's valuable to what they are doing (and getting paid for)
in other areas of their life, and often this is really good.  I don't
want to tar that with a broad brush without thinking it through.