Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> writes: > Quoting Gard Spreemann (2021-03-23 16:18:10) >> >> Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> writes: >> >> > On 2021-03-22 16 h 43, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: >> >> Le vendredi, 19 mars 2021, 17.49:54 h CET Louis-Philippe Véronneau >> >> a écrit : >> >>> On 2021-03-19 08 h 02, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> >>>>> I've been telling a few people last month that I would really >> >>>>> liked to have an Enterprise Edition Online MiniDebConf, >> >>>>> unfortunately I don't have any time/energy to instigate that >> >>>>> currently. >> >>>> >> >>>> Something for a Debian fellow that we could hire ;-) >> >>> >> >>> I for one would be less motivated to help with videoteam tasks if >> >>> I knew someone was paid to organise a miniconf. >> >> >> >> Would your motivation also be affected if an individual was paid >> >> only for a specific task that noone in the team found particularily >> >> interesting to do? >> >> >> >> (I don't know much about how the videoteam works, so I don't know >> >> if that's a good example, but let's see…) For example, what if >> >> someone (paid) handled the storage and timely shipping of all the >> >> hardware, as well as the actual ordering of new hardware, leaving >> >> the (what I assume is the more interesting part) configuring, >> >> design and conception of the system to volunteers? >> > >> > I'm not opposed to paid labor per-say. I think the previous examples >> > of Debian paying TOs to do accounting is a good one. >> > >> > So to answer your question, I wouldn't be opposed if we contracted >> > an enterprise to handle our gear for us. >> > >> > I don't think it's something particularly fun to do and I see that >> > more as an administrative task, akin to accounting. >> > >> > "Organising a miniconf" isn't though. >> >> Is there a fundamental difference between paying someone to do >> "non-fun administrative tasks" like accounting, and paying someone to >> help out with orphaned/RFA'd packages (cf. Christian Kastner's recent >> "How to motivate contributors to work on QA" question)? >> >> It seems to me, to some extent, that a package that is orphaned or >> RFA'd is per definition "not fun enough" for a volunteer to work on. > > Accounting is a mandatory activity regardless of its fun-factor. > > Seems backwards to to me to pay for keeping packages alive that we have > lost interest in. That's a good point, I agree. What about packages that we have lost interest in, but that our users very much have not? Admittedly, I have no idea of what the cardinality of that intersection is. Or alternatively: are there hard-to-maintain packages that are highly useful to users, but where there just isn't enough interest to overcome a very high maintenance burden? Could paid work help offload the maintainer of such packages (leaving them with more of the fun parts and less of the non-fun ones)? Best, Gard
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature