Sugestion for the Lazarus Team lazarus / 8-Other ---------------------------------------------------------------------- sidon · 2006-03-24 03:40 Why not to create something like this : http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php?op=ffoundation? I will be the member #1! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- matthijs · 2006-03-24 06:51 Before I start reading that complete site ... What would be the benefit for a. the Lazarus community and b. the members if they would become a voting member for $300 (sic) a year? In short what is your aim to create such an organisation? I for sure will not pay $300 a year to be able to help devellop Lazarus. (But I may misunderstand your intentions.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- tech-pro · 2006-03-24 09:04 I think the idea is that users pay to support the development. The money from this could be used to fund full-time programmer jobs to speed up the development. It's a way for those who don't have the time and skills to directly help with the project to make a contribution, and a way for commercial users to contribute. If anyone is using a programming tool commercially then $300 is a small amount part of the cost of any project. But one deterrent for commercial users at the moment is that if they find any problem that needs fixing, they have to wait for volunteers, working in their spare time, to fix it. That isn't something most managers would be happy with. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Anonymous · 2006-03-24 13:05 Quote from: "matthijs"Before I start reading that complete site ... What would be the benefit for a. the Lazarus community and b. the members if they would become a voting member for $300 (sic) a year? In short what is your aim to create such an organisation? I for sure will not pay $300 a year to be able to help devellop Lazarus. (But I may misunderstand your intentions.) See carefully my suggestion: "something like this" not exactly equal! Benefits for the Lazarus commuity, IMO, is obvious, money if used with sapience allways brings benefits. :wink: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- felipemdc · 2006-03-24 14:17 There is a new mechanism to support the development now. It's called Lazarus Bounties. http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/Bounties If you need a particular new feature implemented soon, then you can set a price and see if someone wants to implement it for you. This way we don't need to charge potential contributors, but we acctually pay them. And everyone has access to everything that is developed, no need for "Membership" and things like that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Anonymous · 2006-03-27 15:15 Who created this "Lazarus Bounties" scheme? I want to know if if this is 3rd party initiative, or if the Lazarus developers themselves created it.  This is the first I've heard of it, and after searching, I don't see reference to it anywhere else.  The wiki does not say either.  In short, is this official?  Why is it not on the main site? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- felipemdc · 2006-03-27 19:53 Yes, it's official. All developers know about this. I didn't make any anouncements because I wanted to give some time for the idea to Mature. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Anonymous · 2006-03-29 07:32 You realize what kind of perception you are creating right? What's to prevent someone with their personal agenda to bankroll an obscure capability at the expense all work stopping on the main roadmap?  Is your answer a bidding war?  What about the people that have contributed somehow to the project already voluntarily who may NOT have done it if they knew "guns for hire" were running it? I think you are at a summit of a very slippery slope, and personally I'm uneasy about it.  If this is official direction from the leaders, it needs to be out in the open and not clandestine so people can make their choice on a possibly polarizing issue. Especially if the lead developers intend to be Bounty Hunters. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- mattias · 2006-03-29 09:53 This page is hosted on the wiki and it's for all people, it's not limited to the main developers. Maybe this should be made more clear. Lazarus had worked the last 5 years without bounty, and fpc for 15 and they used the gpl and lgpl with modifications to make sure lazarus/fpc stays free. All the devels had jobs and many of them used fpc/laz for it. What do you fear? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc · 2006-03-29 12:09 Quote from: "mattias"All the devels had jobs and many of them used fpc/laz for it. And still have ;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RudieD · 2006-03-29 16:46 Trying to ! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- felipemdc · 2006-03-29 17:25 Quote from: "Anonymous"You realize what kind of perception you are creating right? What is your perception based on? Did you read the full explanation on the wiki? QuoteWhat's to prevent someone with their personal agenda to bankroll an obscure capability at the expense all work stopping on the main roadmap? Is your answer a bidding war?  What about the people that have contributed somehow to the project already voluntarily who may NOT have done it if they knew "guns for hire" were running it? Maybe you should this text present on the wiki: "The idea behind the Bounties is not to substitute the current Mantis bug system, where work will continue normally. The idea is to provide a new development mechanism where commercial application developers can receive professional support and at the same time be able to contribute back to the community." If it's not clear, I'm open for suggestions about how to make it more clear and easy to understand. QuoteEspecially if the lead developers intend to be Bounty Hunters. This is not intended for the lead developers specifically. This is intended to bring more developers and more resources in, and speed things up. And all code produced there must be on the same license of the current code, so it will integrate nicely and be available for everyone for free. Open source is about freedom, not about anything else. I think you have a wrong idea of what open source is. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Anonymous · 2006-03-30 11:49 You were doing fine until the last sentence.  Nobody wants to hear disdainful comments implying that they don't understand what open source is and isn't.  Just because someone expresses they don't particularly like an idea that you don't doesn't mean they don't understand the subject.  Did it occur they might understand it better than you? You want a possible perception?  Extortion. Person A reports a bug.  A fairly serious bug, but apparently doesn't affect that many people yet, but it affects person A.  Main developer says, "we've got other things on the plate, have a roadmap you know, a lot of people are depending on it.  Of course, you *could* grease my palm with silver.  And if you don't, that bug priority might get assigned #1022, otherwise I'll start working on it right away."  Make them choose between paying or starting over.  In the mean time, nobody works on the main project.  You don't like that perception?  Don't let the main developers be eligible for the bounties. Personally, I would prefer a generic fund as listed at the top that goes to pay for servers, bandwidth, dev machines if necessary.  If people want a salary out of this, incorporate and become a business.  I think there would be a big business opportunity for a company that provided the means to compile applications on windows, macOX native, and linux.  I see open source projects asking for donations, but not too many saying that money will guide how the project will be developed. So yes I'm uneasy and a bit surprised if I'm the only one.  Don't take this as I don't want the main developers to be compensated for their time.  I just don't want the integrity of the project to be compromised by external forces.  I would recommend if the main developers want monetary compensation that they request and pool donations, and use the donations as they see fit, but not allow "bounties" to influence development decisions. And sekel, for each FOSS project that you can list that does bounties, I can list 20 that don't, so lets not start that.  I was going to let it go and drop it, if not for being informed that I have the wrong idea of what open source is.