Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of dwhytock@gmail.com designates
 209.85.128.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C4D3141A-B966-449D-8DD2-0E5963FCB7AA@comcast.net>
References: 
 <CAMwm1vGo-TObynMz+jVCs5S+R8y8nAwbWZtHo4rE61sYa+t20Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-ksoiso3JM_6m01UniD28ndGYQ2QWNhEppq9NrXyK_sA6OKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK2iWdQhZv8EOj6cD8sX=2zZ91uD2v7CmK_M90a8u9GVuvx=6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMwm1vHxhc5Dqm2tfq43DQu9yZYzjPkSirUWXti8Ba3Rvw+hcw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMwm1vEfPmA2M2V-Kv0mPJaU_FwBDjZ60oLEWMp-gS3DnN8fCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-ksohgg+bGBjkSK_9NcDeWjuP9b1DjY4h0B3ZsNsLegtE0Ag@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMwm1vFZbtSUsJgSLiF8dqjfS2k2P=0B9CRX1bUZu_GZ0q8JdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<C4D3141A-B966-449D-8DD2-0E5963FCB7AA@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 14:17:03 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAMwm1vFF=HiUNLJ5quedA5ywdgZMPB+jdL+YuyxdtKXFMX8Xzg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Crowdfunding revisited
From: Donald Whytock <dwhytock@gmail.com>
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1d27ec5422404dbc03d68

--001a11c1d27ec5422404dbc03d68
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

>From a developer's perspective I can understand this...you did work, you
want to be paid for doing it, it's not your fault your change didn't get
put in.

But from the perspective of someone wanting the change made, I could see an
expectation of getting past whatever hurdles may block committing being
part of the task.  The product, in this instance, is a production version
of AOO that has the desired change, and the payment represents the desire
to see that happen.

I could actually see a funder being satisfied if the change got put in
whether or not the person being funded did the coding.  If the funded
person was a PMC member who made a good case for the change being accepted,
the funder might not care who actually made the change.

Morally ugly, but I could see it.

Don


On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:

> A caution and something to keep in mind and I am speaking from experience.
>
> Payment to a developer for working on a feature must not be tied or made
> contingent on that feature becoming part of the product. The developer
> ultimately has no control over the inclusion of a feature in a release.
>
> Including a feature in a release is something that only the PMC decides
> and we do it on our own schedule without regards to anyone else's plans.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On May 1, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
>
> > We can take it from both directions...mention BountySource in the context
> > of people offering money for changes, and Catincan for people asking for
> > money for changes.  As examples of business models, along with VAR and
> > consulting.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Donald Whytock <dwhytock@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> The answer from Catincan is, a developer is someone who can commit
> >> changes
> >>> to the project.  "The person listing the project has to be able to have
> >> it
> >>> merged into the main branch or have the approve of a developer that
> can.
> >>> Our goal is to have all users be able to benefit from whatever features
> >> are
> >>> crowdfunded opposed to unsupported forks."
> >>>
> >>
> >> The tricky thing for us is that no committer's work is inviolable.
> >> Every committer has the ability to cast a technical veto.  So one
> >> would need to be careful how one expresses expectations.
> >>
> >> Extreme hypothetical:  Someone offers to pay a committer $10,000 if
> >> they add an advertisement to the splash screen of OpenOffice for
> >> www.OnlinePoker.com.  There is nothing we (Apache) can do to stop that
> >> work from being contracted.  But we can and would veto it from being
> >> included in a release.  But the committer could certainly provide a
> >> private build of that change to their customer, modulo any trademark
> >> issue that might occur.
> >>
> >> So one should not promise (in a contractual sense) to add a feature or
> >> a bug fix to the official AOO release, since the contents of a release
> >> is determined by the PMC via their release votes, and not any one
> >> committer.
> >>
> >>
> >>> And the funding can go to either the individual or the project.  So
> >> someone
> >>> can kick off a fundraiser for himself to submit a change, or the AOO
> PMC
> >>> could perhaps kick off a fundraiser that'd be paid to the ASF.
> >>>
> >>> Was there ever a page made about possible AOO-related business models?
>  I
> >>> thought there was a discussion about it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It was an idea for a blog post I had.  It is still on my "list".  But
> >> if we decide to do something with Catincan it could prompt an even
> >> earlier post.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >>> Don
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Donald Whytock <dwhytock@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Working my way down the crowdfunding list found at
> >>>>
> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_crowd_funding_services
> >>>>
> >>>> ...I find Catincan (catincan.com).  Catincan lets people start
> >>>> fundraising efforts for opensource software feature development, but
> >> only
> >>>> existing developers on existing projects. You can't use Catincan to
> >> start a
> >>>> new project, and they won't accept your fundraising drive unless
> you're
> >> an
> >>>> existing developer.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not sure how this would apply to AOO...whether being a committer on
> the
> >>>> project would be considered being a developer, and whether said
> >> committer
> >>>> could accept funds on his own behalf to do coding as opposed to it
> >> having
> >>>> to go to the ASF.  That would take an inquiry.
> >>>>
> >>>> Don
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:34 AM, janI <jani@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 25 April 2013 13:38, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Donald Whytock <
> dwhytock@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hey all...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We talked a couple months ago about a Kickstarter-like scheme for
> >>>>> paying
> >>>>>>> for bug fixes and enhancements.  Actually, it seems this sort of
> >> thing
> >>>>>>> exists in the other direction:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bountysource
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.bountysource.com/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Bountysource is a site for people to put up funded requests for
> >>>>> changes.
> >>>>>>> People put up issues to fix, along with amounts pledged to the
> >>>>> fixing of
> >>>>>>> them (I've seen $0 pledges, so I guess the pledge is optional),
> >> and a
> >>>>>>> person receives the bounty if a fix is checked in and accepted.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The site is for any open source project with a public homepage.
> >>>>> There's
> >>>>>>> entries for LibreOffice, VLC, PhoneGap plugins and others (none for
> >>>>>>> OpenOffice so far).  They also, yes, have fundraising efforts for
> >>>>> really
> >>>>>>> big changes/features.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Essentially anyone can say they fulfilled the bounty request.  Then
> >>>>>> there's
> >>>>>>> two weeks for the bounty poster to say, "Oh no you didn't!",
> >> otherwise
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> bounty gets paid.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This from a ten-minute read of their FAQ.  There's a little bit
> >> more
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>> it
> >>>>>>> than that, but that's the gist.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Think we'll be seeing OpenOffice bounties?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The problem is this requires that both the person(s) funding and the
> >>>>>> person doing the work know about that website.  But even those
> >> heavily
> >>>>>> involved with the project, or even power users, are unlikely to
> >>>>>> stumble upon that site.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If we really want to encourage this kind of match ups then we'd
> >>>>>> probably need to encourage it somehow, even if just from the
> >>>>>> information sharing perspective.  Although we cannot officially
> >>>>>> endorse these sites, maybe we can add something to the support page
> >>>>>> that says something like:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "The following third-part websites help match users and coders
> >> seeking
> >>>>>> to fund development work in open source projects.  Although the
> >> Apache
> >>>>>> OpenOffice project does not pay for development work, these websites
> >>>>>> may be useful for those wishing to independently make such
> >>>>>> arrangements."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Rob
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Would it be an idea if we made our own subdomain and a couple of
> pages
> >>>>> (e.g. link to a mwiki page), that way we could direct
> >> sponsors/developers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have on the other understood (maybe wrong) that we are not allowed
> to
> >>>>> accept dedicated donations, all donations must go to ASF treasury and
> >> be
> >>>>> distributed from there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> rgds
> >>>>> jan I.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Don
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

--001a11c1d27ec5422404dbc03d68--