Kannan Goundan <kan...@cakoose.com> writes:
> I think the way I described it ("sponsoring a feature") doesn't really
> reflect how I was imagining it. In my head, it looked like this:
> ...
> I could try doing that myself, but someone familiar with the Git
> codebase/community/history would be better at it (and probably be easier for
> you guys to work with :-)
>
> I guess I'm just wondering if there are people who meet those qualifications
> and are interested in going through those steps for pay. Or maybe there's a
> company that does this, like the old Cygnus Solutions?
>
> In particular, I don't expect anything to change about the project's
> development process.
In other words, the sponsoring entity is paying for effort and not
for result--money does not buy inclusion.
That may be workable from the project's point of view; I however
wonder if that is workable from the sponsor's point of view. Things
that may be problematic inside the sponsoring entity (i.e. between
those with money and those who interact with the hired person)
include:
- Does the hired person really meet the right qualifications?
- Did the hired person make a good faith effort?
- Was it the right time to start the topic, or was the codebase too
much in flux at the moment to accept work in that area?
But these are problems between the sponsor and the hired person and
do not concern us ;-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
