[asterisk-biz] Bounties.

[Paul]

You're not taking advantage of someone by paying them less than you
would be willing to work for. They want the work so give it to them.
It's better than letting their children go hungry. You don't want his
children working in clothing and shoe factories, do you? Give him some work.

C. Savinovich wrote:

>    I think I know where the fault relies, herewith my humble opinion:
>
>    If bounty is for work under GPL format, due effort should be exerted on
>the part of the party offering the bounty, for such to meet a level of
>fairness that he honestly will expect to received if someone asked him/her
>to work for the amount of time he/she estimates the work will involve.
>
>    Since the honor system is at work here, it should work both ways.  If
>the party offering the bounty does so with the hope of getting something for
>almost nothing, or if he/she is looking to obtain benefit from some
>desperate worker on a third world country (pardon everyone the bluntness),
>then somehow somewhat that person is taking advantage of the system.  If
>however, if, the party offering bounty believes in his heart that he/she can
>do the same job for $50, by all means, welcome the offer.
>
>Best regards
>C. Savinovich
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com
>[mailto:asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Matthew
>Rubenstein
>Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 12:19 PM
>To: Bill Michaelson
>Cc: Asterisk -Biz
>Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Bounties.
>
>
>On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 14:09 -0400, Bill Michaelson wrote:
>  
>
>>I don't see why work-for-pay (bounties) are incompatible with
>>open-source.  As Mr. Rubenstein points out, bounties are cumulative,
>>and talent is busy.  At least the potential for large sums to be
>>offered is there, and they aren't necessarily "half-assed", whatever
>>that really means.  No offer to pay any amount need be seen as
>>insulting.  One might just as well regard such derision as insulting,
>>but the emotion serves no constructive purpose.
>>
>>Perhaps if a more formalized or structured process for managing
>>bounties was in place, cumulative bounties would grow larger and
>>attract more developers.
>>
>>Suppose you could contribute to a bounty by placing the cash in
>>escrow, assign a deadline, and agree to an arbiter for judging
>>completion.  Would such a system be workable?  Would it encourage more
>>development of features desired by the broad community?
>>    
>>
>
>	Judgement of meeting the acceptance criteria is a transaction that
>is
>rarely noncontroversial, even when the developer is working to their own
>spec, at their own expense, in private :).
>
>	But there is possibly a way to use copyright in the open process:
>any
>claim on the bounty prohibits copying the submission for purposes other
>than testing it. The prohibition is lifted, and the code released under
>GPL, when the bounty is paid. That setup would bring both the contract
>and copyright law to bear on enforcing claims on the bounty, once
>accepted in fact by someone using the code.
>
>	The strongest way is for a 3rd party to both hold the bounty paid by
>its offerer, and to test the submission before paying its claim. But who
>is that "trusted judge"? And should they be compensated, perhaps a
>percentage of the bounty, for their work mediating the claims?
>
>	Another way is to include the community as the judge. Code submitted
>to
>claim the bounty can be tested by as many people as want, with test
>results submitted with a vote of whether the bounty can be claimed.
>
>	In any setup, the decision by the bounty offerer to pay the bounty
>should be final. However, decisions not to pay are the part that will
>never be reliably conclusive every time, as is the case in all business
>transactions. That's the part of the system that no one has figured out
>perfectly. And which each community using bounties has to figure out
>what works best for itself.
>
>
>
>  
>
>>Alex Balashov wrote: 
>>    
>>
>>>On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Jason Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I have personally, on many occasions, seen somebody request a feature 
>>>>which I think is neat/interesting/whatever.  I say "I think that's 
>>>>great, and I can write that."  I do it *for free*, because *I* like
>>>>        
>>>>
>the 
>  
>
>>>>idea.  If somebody is willing to pay me (hey, $50 will buy a pretty 
>>>>decent dinner for 2) for something I enjoyed doing - even better.
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>   Being an open-source developer myself, I can entirely appreciate
>>>      
>>>
>that.
>  
>
>>>   The concept just seems confused, to me;  if you want to have things
>>>developed in the "spirit of open-source" that you have elucidated,
>>>      
>>>
>simply
>  
>
>>>request them as a feature in some kind of systematic way.  If you are
>>>trying to create incentives of a commercial nature along with that,
>>>then, in my view, don't make them half-assed.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Alex Balashov
>>>Evariste Systems
>>>Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
>>>Tel    : +1-678-954-0670
>>>Direct : +1-678-954-0671
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>>>
>>>asterisk-biz mailing list
>>>To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
>>>
>>>  
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>>
>>asterisk-biz mailing list
>>To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
>>    
>>