On 06/11/2015 17:40, Alex M wrote:
> > I caution the use of $ to directly influence the QEP review and Pull > Request reviews. Some sort of bounty pool, allowing core devs to get a > stipend for clearing big reviews might be an option. So companies can > contribute to QGIS and that money can go to expedite all QEP and Code > reviews, but not a specific one. I'm mostly concerned with paid funding > driving the direction of the project into strange niches and increasing > the core code maintenance tasks. Plugins seem a much easier way to pay > for exactly what you need. Plugins are not always doable or desirable. But I share your concerns about paid funding that drive the direction of the project. This is why we thought it should be "validated" somehow by the project which will act as a neutral intermediary. And this is why I think a core dev should publish its intents by issuing a PR for each new feature. > > Free work vs volunteer work is tricky to draw a line between in a > project like this. I think you'd have to survey the devs about what % > they think comes from each in order to account for time spent at > salaried job helping QGIS, time spent improving QGIS to help you sell > services (consultants), time spent being directly paid to do X with > QGIS. There are tons of ways that time is not exactly volunteer. Yes. Count at least the time you are sure is fully voluntary :) (it could be close to 0 ... this is my case) _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer