On Jan 26, 2011, at 7:48 AM, Richard Broersma wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:38 AM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > >> I'm thinking that we should consider *very* carefully before we >> introduce payments into what had been an all-volunteer effort. You >> may get people to do things they might not otherwise have done, but >> you'll also make people wonder whether they should be volunteering at >> all. >> >> Offhand, I'd say this is a really bad idea. > > Wow, I hadn't considered this. > > But I'm reminded of GSOC, which is essentially doing something similar. Has > this effect already taken place among the volunteering patch writers?
GCOC has been great. It helps bring in people who otherwise might not have participated in a project. IME, those who were already on a project were glad to have them. I think M. Fetter is completely wrong. If people are rethinking whether they should volunteer based on whether other people are being funded for their time to review patches, we don't want such people around anyway. Let them leave. You might consider targeting a specific audience, though. Part of GCOC's success has been in allowing a class of people to participate who otherwise would have had to get summer jobs flipping burgers. If you're helping people to help the project who otherwise could not have, it's a good thing. Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
