On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 10:45:37AM +0100, ext Quim Gil wrote: > Not that I'm against or in favour of bounties (depends on the context > and particular circumstances, I guess) but...
Indeed, conceptually it seems okay, but it seems that very limited, targeted, bounties should be offered, instead of a larger program. > On 1/11/07, Andrew Flegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Looking around for off-the-shelf software we could customise shows up > >GNOME's Bounties programme (the bounties are vetted by committee): > > > > http://www.gnome.org/bounties/ > > This programme was discontinued, it's worth knowing why. Ditto Ubuntu's. > >... and Nat Friedman's thoughts on what I've just described above: > > > > http://nat.org/2005/january/#bountysystem > > Let's not forrget Luis Villa's research on the same topic, far less > optimistic: > > http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/06/18/crowding-out-of-intrinsic-motivations-aka-the-bounty-problem/ I don't know that this was the exact problem. Ours wasn't analysed quite so heavily, but it semeed that[0]: a) for motivated, talented, community members, either the small amounts on offer weren't enough to have them able to leave their job for a while and throw large amounts of time at it, or they'd already do it for the love of it; b) so you got a lot of random ring-ins coming in, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the code was often not great quality, and usually didn't comply to the community norms, meaning it took a great deal of work to fix anyway; c) most of these people didn't seem to stick around: they took their bounty money and simply disappeared. So it was more of a community-building problem, but quite an alarming one at that. Cheers, Daniel [0]: Speaking from my POV, not Canonical's, Ubuntu's, Nokia's, etc.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
