Mailing List Archive

Screamer wrote:
>
> I don't think they were serious, but this sounds like a fine idea.
> Reposted with permission. From #wikimedia-tech:
>
>
> [21:43] <kylu> actually, you should change bugzilla... instead of
> voting for bugs, you donate for them
> [21:43] <AaronSchulz> and it builds up like a pot, that they get if
> they implement it
>
>
> Actually, I think this is a grand idea. Bugging for dollars. What
> are the thoughts?
>
>
> ./scream
>
>
To clarify, the proceeds go to the foundation. :)

./scream



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

better idea than ads! I have a feeling that single logon would skyrocket to the top of the list.


----- Original Message ----
From: Screamer <scream@datascreamer.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 7:51:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising "Bugging for Dollars"

Screamer wrote:
>
> I don't think they were serious, but this sounds like a fine idea.
> Reposted with permission. From #wikimedia-tech:
>
>
> [21:43] <kylu> actually, you should change bugzilla... instead of
> voting for bugs, you donate for them
> [21:43] <AaronSchulz> and it builds up like a pot, that they get if
> they implement it
>
>
> Actually, I think this is a grand idea. Bugging for dollars. What
> are the thoughts?
>
>
> ./scream
>
>
To clarify, the proceeds go to the foundation. :)

./scream



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I'm sure they weren't serious - if something is a valid bug... It should be
fixed without regard to whether folks decide to pay to get it fixed. Feature
requests should be implemented as they can be, based on factors completely
unrelated to whether some folks want it enough to pay for it. That should
pretty clear, if you think about it.

Nathan



On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> better idea than ads! I have a feeling that single logon would skyrocket
> to the top of the list.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Screamer <scream@datascreamer.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 7:51:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising "Bugging for Dollars"
>
> Screamer wrote:
> >
> > I don't think they were serious, but this sounds like a fine idea.
> > Reposted with permission. From #wikimedia-tech:
> >
> >
> > [21:43] <kylu> actually, you should change bugzilla... instead of
> > voting for bugs, you donate for them
> > [21:43] <AaronSchulz> and it builds up like a pot, that they get if
> > they implement it
> >
> >
> > Actually, I think this is a grand idea. Bugging for dollars. What
> > are the thoughts?
> >
> >
> > ./scream
> >
> >
> To clarify, the proceeds go to the foundation. :)
>
> ./scream
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 20/03/2008, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sure they weren't serious - if something is a valid bug... It should be
> fixed without regard to whether folks decide to pay to get it fixed. Feature
> requests should be implemented as they can be, based on factors completely
> unrelated to whether some folks want it enough to pay for it. That should
> pretty clear, if you think about it.

It's not a new idea - other open source projects have implemented
systems where people can pledge money to have a particular bug fixed
or featured added and whoever does the fix gets the cash. It's a good
way to motivate coders to do the bits people want done. I don't think
it would work for MediaWiki, though - we don't pay people to edit
articles, so why should we pay people to patch the software? Having
the money go to the foundation seems pointless - what does it achieve?
Are people really going to be that motivated to fix a particular bug
rather than the bug their interested in just so the foundation gets a
small donation?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Nathan wrote:
> I'm sure they weren't serious - if something is a valid bug... It should be
> fixed without regard to whether folks decide to pay to get it fixed. Feature
> requests should be implemented as they can be, based on factors completely
> unrelated to whether some folks want it enough to pay for it. That should
> pretty clear, if you think about it.
>
> Nathan
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> better idea than ads! I have a feeling that single logon would skyrocket
>> to the top of the list.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Screamer <scream@datascreamer.com>
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 7:51:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising "Bugging for Dollars"
>>
>> Screamer wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think they were serious, but this sounds like a fine idea.
>>> Reposted with permission. From #wikimedia-tech:
>>>
>>>
>>> [21:43] <kylu> actually, you should change bugzilla... instead of
>>> voting for bugs, you donate for them
>>> [21:43] <AaronSchulz> and it builds up like a pot, that they get if
>>> they implement it
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, I think this is a grand idea. Bugging for dollars. What
>>> are the thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>> ./scream
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> To clarify, the proceeds go to the foundation. :)
>>
>> ./scream
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>> Be a better friend, newshound, and
>> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Well of course, bugs get coded, no matter what. Feature requests, can
be coded at normal priority. But, the foundation can hold an auction
everyweek, and the bug to win, gets the highest priority. Nothing wrong
with that. Nothing at all.


Everything "should" be done this way or that way does not seem to hold
here. Everything can be done however the foundation wants to do it. I
don't see why the foundation can not take a seriously look, at this
proposal.


./scream
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I wouldn't necessarily say that it should be auction style. Rather,
make it $1/vote for bugs, and the bugs that have the highest votes
(excluding configuration changes and other minor things) would get
priority. I would say that the money donated to this should be
earmarked as for tech purposes only, just to keep the money focused
on the reason it was donated.

Perhaps this "fund" could be used to provide assistance (a contractor?)
or other such things that require additional resources above and beyond
the day-to-day bugfixing and such.

Just some thoughts. I would love to hear Brion's or Domas' opinions.

-Chad

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Screamer <scream@datascreamer.com> wrote:
>
> Nathan wrote:
> > I'm sure they weren't serious - if something is a valid bug... It should be
> > fixed without regard to whether folks decide to pay to get it fixed. Feature
> > requests should be implemented as they can be, based on factors completely
> > unrelated to whether some folks want it enough to pay for it. That should
> > pretty clear, if you think about it.
> >
> > Nathan
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> better idea than ads! I have a feeling that single logon would skyrocket
> >> to the top of the list.
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Screamer <scream@datascreamer.com>
> >> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 7:51:33 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising "Bugging for Dollars"
> >>
> >> Screamer wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't think they were serious, but this sounds like a fine idea.
> >>> Reposted with permission. From #wikimedia-tech:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [21:43] <kylu> actually, you should change bugzilla... instead of
> >>> voting for bugs, you donate for them
> >>> [21:43] <AaronSchulz> and it builds up like a pot, that they get if
> >>> they implement it
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Actually, I think this is a grand idea. Bugging for dollars. What
> >>> are the thoughts?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ./scream
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> To clarify, the proceeds go to the foundation. :)
> >>
> >> ./scream
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> >> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> >> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> >> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> Well of course, bugs get coded, no matter what. Feature requests, can
> be coded at normal priority. But, the foundation can hold an auction
> everyweek, and the bug to win, gets the highest priority. Nothing wrong
> with that. Nothing at all.
>
>
> Everything "should" be done this way or that way does not seem to hold
> here. Everything can be done however the foundation wants to do it. I
> don't see why the foundation can not take a seriously look, at this
> proposal.
>
>
>
>
> ./scream
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

This seems very reasonable. One can make restricted donations for a
purpose only. And it can be made known, that such a donation is for the
restricted purpose of equipment purchase and upkeep, bandwidth, and or
network staff.


./scream


Chad wrote:
> I wouldn't necessarily say that it should be auction style. Rather,
> make it $1/vote for bugs, and the bugs that have the highest votes
> (excluding configuration changes and other minor things) would get
> priority. I would say that the money donated to this should be
> earmarked as for tech purposes only, just to keep the money focused
> on the reason it was donated.
>
> Perhaps this "fund" could be used to provide assistance (a contractor?)
> or other such things that require additional resources above and beyond
> the day-to-day bugfixing and such.
>
> Just some thoughts. I would love to hear Brion's or Domas' opinions.
>
> -Chad
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Screamer <scream@datascreamer.com> wrote:
>
>> Nathan wrote:
>> > I'm sure they weren't serious - if something is a valid bug... It should be
>> > fixed without regard to whether folks decide to pay to get it fixed. Feature
>> > requests should be implemented as they can be, based on factors completely
>> > unrelated to whether some folks want it enough to pay for it. That should
>> > pretty clear, if you think about it.
>> >
>> > Nathan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> better idea than ads! I have a feeling that single logon would skyrocket
>> >> to the top of the list.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message ----
>> >> From: Screamer <scream@datascreamer.com>
>> >> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 7:51:33 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising "Bugging for Dollars"
>> >>
>> >> Screamer wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I don't think they were serious, but this sounds like a fine idea.
>> >>> Reposted with permission. From #wikimedia-tech:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> [21:43] <kylu> actually, you should change bugzilla... instead of
>> >>> voting for bugs, you donate for them
>> >>> [21:43] <AaronSchulz> and it builds up like a pot, that they get if
>> >>> they implement it
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Actually, I think this is a grand idea. Bugging for dollars. What
>> >>> are the thoughts?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ./scream
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> To clarify, the proceeds go to the foundation. :)
>> >>
>> >> ./scream
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> foundation-l mailing list
>> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>> >> Be a better friend, newshound, and
>> >> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>> >> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> foundation-l mailing list
>> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >>
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>> Well of course, bugs get coded, no matter what. Feature requests, can
>> be coded at normal priority. But, the foundation can hold an auction
>> everyweek, and the bug to win, gets the highest priority. Nothing wrong
>> with that. Nothing at all.
>>
>>
>> Everything "should" be done this way or that way does not seem to hold
>> here. Everything can be done however the foundation wants to do it. I
>> don't see why the foundation can not take a seriously look, at this
>> proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ./scream
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> Well of course, bugs get coded, no matter what. Feature requests, can
> be coded at normal priority. But, the foundation can hold an auction
> everyweek, and the bug to win, gets the highest priority. Nothing wrong
> with that. Nothing at all.

That works for determining what work the developers that are on the
foundation payroll prioritise. It won't have much effect on the
volunteer developers. I don't know what the proportions are, but the
volunteers do do a significant amount of the work. I imagine (although
I'm far from sure) that most of the little things which are likely to
attract such votes are done by volunteers, while the paid developers
work on bigger projects, like single user logon. If I'm right, then a
voting system won't make much difference.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
There has been a voting system for fixing bugs for a real long time. It just
does not make much difference. Bugs are waiting for a friendly developer to
come along, bugs that first needed board approval before it gets in
Bugzilla, bugs that will start new projects that are waiting. The request
for the Hungarian Wikinews is waiting today for its 49th day.... It is
bugging the people that just have to wait for their project to start.

When we need to get things done, we either do it ourselves or we wait until
it gets done. When dollars buy you bug fixes, you have to wonder what the
net effect is. As it is, the priorities are decided by necessity and a
volunteer can do whatever tickles his fancy. Dollars do not buy you what
needs doing and a volunteer is not for sale. Consequently the only way in
which you can buy a bug fix is when people are contracted to do this work
and they will do this at a reasonable rate if there is continuity for the
contractor.

Many organisations have issues with bugs. Many occasionally hire a
developer. As they are needed only occasionally bugs are expensive to fix.

Thanks,
GerardM

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wouldn't necessarily say that it should be auction style. Rather,
> make it $1/vote for bugs, and the bugs that have the highest votes
> (excluding configuration changes and other minor things) would get
> priority. I would say that the money donated to this should be
> earmarked as for tech purposes only, just to keep the money focused
> on the reason it was donated.
>
> Perhaps this "fund" could be used to provide assistance (a contractor?)
> or other such things that require additional resources above and beyond
> the day-to-day bugfixing and such.
>
> Just some thoughts. I would love to hear Brion's or Domas' opinions.
>
> -Chad
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Screamer <scream@datascreamer.com> wrote:
> >
> > Nathan wrote:
> > > I'm sure they weren't serious - if something is a valid bug... It
> should be
> > > fixed without regard to whether folks decide to pay to get it fixed.
> Feature
> > > requests should be implemented as they can be, based on factors
> completely
> > > unrelated to whether some folks want it enough to pay for it. That
> should
> > > pretty clear, if you think about it.
> > >
> > > Nathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <
> geo.plrd@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> better idea than ads! I have a feeling that single logon would
> skyrocket
> > >> to the top of the list.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message ----
> > >> From: Screamer <scream@datascreamer.com>
> > >> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 7:51:33 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising "Bugging for Dollars"
> > >>
> > >> Screamer wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I don't think they were serious, but this sounds like a fine idea.
> > >>> Reposted with permission. From #wikimedia-tech:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> [21:43] <kylu> actually, you should change bugzilla... instead of
> > >>> voting for bugs, you donate for them
> > >>> [21:43] <AaronSchulz> and it builds up like a pot, that they get if
> > >>> they implement it
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Actually, I think this is a grand idea. Bugging for dollars. What
> > >>> are the thoughts?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ./scream
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> To clarify, the proceeds go to the foundation. :)
> > >>
> > >> ./scream
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> foundation-l mailing list
> > >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > >> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > >> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> > >> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> foundation-l mailing list
> > >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > Well of course, bugs get coded, no matter what. Feature requests, can
> > be coded at normal priority. But, the foundation can hold an auction
> > everyweek, and the bug to win, gets the highest priority. Nothing
> wrong
> > with that. Nothing at all.
> >
> >
> > Everything "should" be done this way or that way does not seem to hold
> > here. Everything can be done however the foundation wants to do it.
> I
> > don't see why the foundation can not take a seriously look, at this
> > proposal.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ./scream
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Screamer <scream@datascreamer.com> wrote:
> I don't think they were serious, but this sounds like a fine idea.
> Reposted with permission. From #wikimedia-tech:
> [21:43] <kylu> actually, you should change bugzilla... instead of voting
> for bugs, you donate for them
> [21:43] <AaronSchulz> and it builds up like a pot, that they get if they
> implement it
> Actually, I think this is a grand idea. Bugging for dollars. What are
> the thoughts?

This is an idea that I've seen in other places, and I've seen the word
"microdonation" used with it. Here are some of the rules that I've
seen used with this kind of process:

1) The user has a bug request, and submits that request to bugzilla
2) The user applies a donation to the bug request into a trust. The
trust would have a deadline completion date.
3) Other users may also donate money into a trust for the bug. There
would either be a single global deadline, or each user could
individually select a deadline.
4a) If the feature is implemented, all the donation money which is not
past deadline is given to the developer
4b) If the deadline passes before the bug is implemented, the donation
money is returned to the donors.

This provides very interesting financial incentive for our volunteer
developers. We could also work out some rules regarding our paid
developers (ie, do the paid developers get the money, or would it go
to the foundation, etc). This would certainly require a number of
improvements to bugzilla, and possibly a partnership with some kind of
financial institution that could make it happen.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 20/03/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think
> it would work for MediaWiki, though - we don't pay people to edit
> articles, so why should we pay people to patch the software?


Because we're vastly well-supplied with editors and horribly
undersupplied with developers.


> Having
> the money go to the foundation seems pointless - what does it achieve?
> Are people really going to be that motivated to fix a particular bug
> rather than the bug their interested in just so the foundation gets a
> small donation?


If we actually got enough bug donation money to fund paying a dev,
that would be *fantastically* helpful to the projects by enhancing
MediaWiki.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> > Having
> > the money go to the foundation seems pointless - what does it achieve?
> > Are people really going to be that motivated to fix a particular bug
> > rather than the bug their interested in just so the foundation gets a
> > small donation?
>
> If we actually got enough bug donation money to fund paying a dev,
> that would be *fantastically* helpful to the projects by enhancing
> MediaWiki.

The basically involves using the donations to prioritise what the paid
devs work on, which is certainly far more doable than trying to
control what the unpaid devs do. I'm not sure what the paid devs
currently prioritise, but I think it's generally big projects like
single user logon, rather than small bug fixes and feature requests,
which are what's likely to get donations.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 20/03/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:

> > If we actually got enough bug donation money to fund paying a dev,
> > that would be *fantastically* helpful to the projects by enhancing
> > MediaWiki.

> The basically involves using the donations to prioritise what the paid
> devs work on, which is certainly far more doable than trying to
> control what the unpaid devs do. I'm not sure what the paid devs
> currently prioritise, but I think it's generally big projects like
> single user logon, rather than small bug fixes and feature requests,
> which are what's likely to get donations.


I wouldn't say that's *bad*. Having such a system work at all would
produce motion within the buglist.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 6:37 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/03/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think
> > it would work for MediaWiki, though - we don't pay people to edit
> > articles, so why should we pay people to patch the software?
>
> Because we're vastly well-supplied with editors and horribly
> undersupplied with developers.

Another benefit that I see (and some people might not see this as a
benefit) is that people can more effectively earmark their donation
money for specific purposes, instead of donating into the general
"operating" fund of the foundation. This gives donors more control
over where their money goes.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Screamer wrote:
> This seems very reasonable. One can make restricted donations for a
> purpose only. And it can be made known, that such a donation is for the
> restricted purpose of equipment purchase and upkeep, bandwidth, and or
> network staff.
Looks like an excellent way to generate useless extra bookkeeping in
maintaining tainted accounts. If we have $1,000,000 budgeted for
equipment anyway, and we have $50,000 designated for equipment by
donors, then we just use that $50,000 as designated, and add $950,000
from general revenue. It all comes to the same thing except for the
extra bookkeeping. If a donor cuts it too fine, and starts insisting on
specific types of equipment as a condition for his donation, it's best
to just send the money back, or better still tear up the cheque and put
it in the trash.

Ec



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
This is only true when the money is spend on hardware. When you want to pay
to get a particular problem fixed you cannot influence this. In the mean
times some of the problems are debilitating to the extend that you cannot do
a thing. When you have the option to pay someone to do what needs doing, it
would be often a good thing. It allows you to influence priorities. The only
thing needed from a WMF point of view that the work is done by someone
trusted.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:

> Screamer wrote:
> > This seems very reasonable. One can make restricted donations for a
> > purpose only. And it can be made known, that such a donation is for the
> > restricted purpose of equipment purchase and upkeep, bandwidth, and or
> > network staff.
> Looks like an excellent way to generate useless extra bookkeeping in
> maintaining tainted accounts. If we have $1,000,000 budgeted for
> equipment anyway, and we have $50,000 designated for equipment by
> donors, then we just use that $50,000 as designated, and add $950,000
> from general revenue. It all comes to the same thing except for the
> extra bookkeeping. If a donor cuts it too fine, and starts insisting on
> specific types of equipment as a condition for his donation, it's best
> to just send the money back, or better still tear up the cheque and put
> it in the trash.
>
> Ec
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Screamer wrote:
>
>> This seems very reasonable. One can make restricted donations for a
>> purpose only. And it can be made known, that such a donation is for the
>> restricted purpose of equipment purchase and upkeep, bandwidth, and or
>> network staff.
>>
> Looks like an excellent way to generate useless extra bookkeeping in
> maintaining tainted accounts. If we have $1,000,000 budgeted for
> equipment anyway, and we have $50,000 designated for equipment by
> donors, then we just use that $50,000 as designated, and add $950,000
> from general revenue. It all comes to the same thing except for the
> extra bookkeeping. If a donor cuts it too fine, and starts insisting on
> specific types of equipment as a condition for his donation, it's best
> to just send the money back, or better still tear up the cheque and put
> it in the trash.
>
> Ec
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

is for the
> restricted purpose of equipment purchase and upkeep, bandwidth, and or
> network staff.


How is this too fine? And I don't think anyone has tainted accounts. I'm having troble following you. As I understand it, the foundation accepts restricted donations currently.


./scream

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Can a member of WMF comment on the feasibility of this proposal? Thanks.


./scream



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hello,

> Can a member of WMF comment on the feasibility of this proposal?
> Thanks.


It still remains my personal opinion though, but I hope it will sound
sane. If needed, I'd provide this personal opinion to anyone
interested :)

Currently WMF has extremely capable developers under the payroll,
though, only few of them.
So far development time has been most expensive resource to allocate,
and there're always important projects to be worked on.
So, there're strategic goals, and there're operational goals.

Now, how big should be donation, to support one feature or another?
In software industry, the pay-for-feature development is charged at
least 200$ per man-hour, so our internal development costs are
slightly lower %)
Add operational expenses costs afterwards - they increase too.

So this 'I pay 10$ gimmie features' idea doesn't really work, and is
actually impossible to administrate. Ending up with 1000 different
budgets for 1000 different features doesn't really work.
To make this viable, it has to make serious 'profit' (the cost of
allocating developer who has been working on #1 project to do #100
priority project is quite high, so there has to be quite high
motivation for it).

Anything higher, like "we want to give you 10000$ for X" is something
what can definitely go to WMF business development department, and
they can evaluate that.

WMF is not software organization, nor software project, and though it
maybe needs more brainpower/muscle, it still needs to be allocated to
high-importance projects, to maintain collaboration infrastructure
for community.
There were thoughts in the past to have separate fundraising account
for mediawiki development, but even then, foundation shouldn't be
interested in assigning people to projects that are not important in
general mission.

And general mission is supported from general budget.
The higher general budget gets, more development resources can be
obtained to work on various projects, and if your pet ideas fall into
the agenda, they might get developed and rolled out.

--
Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 21/03/2008, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

> Currently WMF has extremely capable developers under the payroll,
> though, only few of them.
> So far development time has been most expensive resource to allocate,
> and there're always important projects to be worked on.
> So, there're strategic goals, and there're operational goals.
> Now, how big should be donation, to support one feature or another?
> In software industry, the pay-for-feature development is charged at
> least 200$ per man-hour, so our internal development costs are
> slightly lower %)
> Add operational expenses costs afterwards - they increase too.
> So this 'I pay 10$ gimmie features' idea doesn't really work, and is
> actually impossible to administrate. Ending up with 1000 different
> budgets for 1000 different features doesn't really work.
> To make this viable, it has to make serious 'profit' (the cost of
> allocating developer who has been working on #1 project to do #100
> priority project is quite high, so there has to be quite high
> motivation for it).


Oh well :-)

Hmm. What about beg notices all over Bugzilla? "Support MediaWiki
development: give us MONEY!" or similar. Just for a single dev pool.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hi!

> Hmm. What about beg notices all over Bugzilla? "Support MediaWiki
> development: give us MONEY!" or similar. Just for a single dev pool.

Well, foundation doesn't really _own_ mediawiki, nor its development
- it is GPL project, and no external contributors have their rights
assigned. It has few major committers who do great work on mediawiki
to support the live sites.
Who would operate that pool? Would that pool be used to pay for WMF
developers, or for 3rd party contributors only? Should WMF sponsor MW
development in any way, if there is separate dev pool, etc :)

And of course, we can put "support mediawiki development by donating
to wikimedia foundation" links everywhere. actually, every time
someone wants to donate for mediawiki help/development/.. we already
did redirect to foundation.
Sometimes people go with "But I want to thank you directly guys", and
get the answer "So donate to WMF" :)

Volunteer developers do it because it provides value to WMF anyway.
It is WMF role to decide if it wants to pay back in any way.

--
Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Gerard wrote:
> On 21/03/2008, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Currently WMF has extremely capable developers under the payroll,
>> though, only few of them.
>> So far development time has been most expensive resource to allocate,
>> and there're always important projects to be worked on.
>> So, there're strategic goals, and there're operational goals.
>> Now, how big should be donation, to support one feature or another?
>> In software industry, the pay-for-feature development is charged at
>> least 200$ per man-hour, so our internal development costs are
>> slightly lower %)
>> Add operational expenses costs afterwards - they increase too.
>> So this 'I pay 10$ gimmie features' idea doesn't really work, and is
>> actually impossible to administrate. Ending up with 1000 different
>> budgets for 1000 different features doesn't really work.
>> To make this viable, it has to make serious 'profit' (the cost of
>> allocating developer who has been working on #1 project to do #100
>> priority project is quite high, so there has to be quite high
>> motivation for it).
>>
>
>
> Oh well :-)
>
> Hmm. What about beg notices all over Bugzilla? "Support MediaWiki
> development: give us MONEY!" or similar. Just for a single dev pool.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
This I could also support. :)

./scream
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I realized I screwed the subject. form WMF = from WMF



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

How about we build a bounty board into Bugzilla?



----- Original Message ----
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 3:47:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising "Bugging for Dollars"

Hoi,
This is only true when the money is spend on hardware. When you want to pay
to get a particular problem fixed you cannot influence this. In the mean
times some of the problems are debilitating to the extend that you cannot do
a thing. When you have the option to pay someone to do what needs doing, it
would be often a good thing. It allows you to influence priorities. The only
thing needed from a WMF point of view that the work is done by someone
trusted.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:

> Screamer wrote:
> > This seems very reasonable. One can make restricted donations for a
> > purpose only. And it can be made known, that such a donation is for the
> > restricted purpose of equipment purchase and upkeep, bandwidth, and or
> > network staff.
> Looks like an excellent way to generate useless extra bookkeeping in
> maintaining tainted accounts. If we have $1,000,000 budgeted for
> equipment anyway, and we have $50,000 designated for equipment by
> donors, then we just use that $50,000 as designated, and add $950,000
> from general revenue. It all comes to the same thing except for the
> extra bookkeeping. If a donor cuts it too fine, and starts insisting on
> specific types of equipment as a condition for his donation, it's best
> to just send the money back, or better still tear up the cheque and put
> it in the trash.
>
> Ec
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l