On 23 March 2012 13:26, mark florisson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22 March 2012 21:53, Stefan Behnel <[email protected]> wrote: >> Robert Bradshaw, 22.03.2012 19:39: >>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote: >>>> Regarding funding in general, maybe we should just start putting up one or >>>> two of those sexy funding bars on our web site, like the PyPy devs do for >>>> their funded projects. Assuming that goes well, it would also allow us to >>>> put money on dedicated projects by paying basically ourselves for doing >>>> tasks that we won't normally spend our precious spare time on (e.g. because >>>> they appear too large for a weekend), but that we and our users deem >>>> necessary for some reason. >>> >>> While that's a good idea in theory, I'm not sure how many additional >>> hours would be freed up just because we could pay ourselves for it. >> >> And if more than one person frees hours for a given project, how would we >> distribute the money? And how do we know we can still trust each other when >> it comes to counting the hours? ;) >> >> >>> Perhaps it would act primarily as an additional incentive to align our >>> efforts with user request (though there are certainly already >>> non-monetary incentives). >> >> There sure are, and I'm sure that won't change. We should see it as an >> addition to what we invest voluntarily. No-one's going to pay for code >> cleanup and refactoring, for example, or for tweaks and "having fun at the >> weekend" code and "I hate that being slow" optimisations. >> >> We are not necessarily talking about large projects here that represent >> person months of value. If I were to decide if I'd start implementing a >> feature that looks like taking me, say, 10 days, and I'm not seriously >> self-motivated in doing it, I won't even start because I know that I'll >> have enough other things to do in the meantime that weigh in equally for >> me. But, when I know I'll be paid for doing it, I'll certainly consider >> shifting my priorities. And even if it takes three months to finish it in >> my spare time, it would still be done in the end, which is much better than >> just staying an open tracker entry forever. >> >> >>> the >>> monetization of Cython development changes the spirit of things a bit, >>> and while I am a big fan of people being able to make money, or even a >>> living, off of open source development >> >> I think if that works depends a lot on what you do exactly, who the users >> are and also what you do in order to sell it (and yourself). It doesn't >> work for every project and certainly not for everyone. >> >> >>> it complicates things a lot >>> from a legal, financial, and political perspective. >> >> Yes, I'm seeing that, too. But in any case, before it comes to asking for >> donations for a given feature/project/fix/whatever, one of the first >> questions will be: who can do it? And when? I think that will kill a lot of >> political hassle early enough (although hopefully not the project in >> question ;). >> >> >>> The current model of organization X is willing to pay developer Y for >>> feature Z directly seems to work well enough for the moment. >> >> That would still work. However, a donation based model would allow us to >> lower the barrier. Paying a whole feature may be too much for a single >> (smaller) company, and they would have to know exactly what they want in >> order to ask us to do it for them. If, instead, we put up a list of >> projects we consider worth doing and they can make a donation of, say, 5% >> or 10% of the actual sum and let others pay for the same feature as well, >> they can just use it to show their appreciation for the general gain we >> give them, without desperately needing a given feature themselves. It would >> also allow users to contribute money for "nice to have" features, which is >> otherwise less likely to happen. >> >> >>> E.g. with >>> GSoC, the bottleneck is finding good enough students and time to >>> mentor them, not slots (=funding). >> >> The mentors are not getting paid in a GSoC. So we invest our time by >> guiding the student, and that's regardless of the usability of the outcome. >> Even if there is an outcome, it's not unheard of that the mere overhead of >> cleaning up and integrating the contribution comes close to reimplementing >> it. It doesn't always work out as well as with Dag and Mark. >> >> I'm not saying GSoCs are bad - we've certainly had a boost of overall >> development power through them. But they are just one way to fund the >> development, and not always the best one. >> >> >>> Opening up funding to non-students >>> could help a bit, but IMHO wouldn't change the balance that much (the >>> gainfully employed cost a lot more and have less spare time). >> >> It's certainly not the right way to attract new developers. But it's a way >> to advance the development. >> >> Stefan >> _______________________________________________ >> cython-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel > > This may be OT for this thread, but sas numpy removed at some point > from Jenkins? I'm seeing this for all python versions since Februari > 25: > > Following tests excluded because of missing dependencies on your system: > run.memoryviewattrs > run.numpy_ValueError_T172 > run.numpy_bufacc_T155 > run.numpy_cimport > run.numpy_memoryview > run.numpy_parallel > run.numpy_test > ALL DONE
I also changed the cython-sdist to pull from the release0.16 branch, to make sure things work in the release. _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
