Hi Andrew,
On 12/05/2016 10:52 AM, Andrew David Wong wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 2016-12-04 13:50, Patrick Bouldin wrote:
Andrew,
I'm very willing to donate - and well noted that you all will continue to
update the core changes in the public domain. I do understand the why, the what
and the dollars for the change - however, will there be anyone left to work on
the core, for the sake of the core? Just wondering where the donation dollars
will be going. I ask because I agree with the person noting 20,000 current
licenses. If we all sent in $100 US each then that's $2 million US.
Is it possible to set up some separation of funding to ensure each group is
getting what they want? Set up the public funding better with separate
marketing, and let that fund improvements for the public domain (not just
maintenance and slight core improvements) - and then fund your corporate goals
using the methods you mentioned.
As a relatively new user I'm concerned about investing more time in this and it
not progressing.
Thanks,
Patrick
Dallas, Texas
As mentioned in the announcement, all donations made via Open Collective will
be paid directly to developers who have been hired to work on the open source
edition of Qubes. ITL will not see or benefit from any of that money. All from
donated funds should be transparently visible to everyone on our Open
Collective page.
From Marek's answers to my questions (thanks BTW !) and from what I
read from follow-up posts by fellow users, I don't think it was clear
who would work on the open source edition, hence those questions from
the OP, from Chris Laprise, ...
The original post mentioned hiring a dev - but I thought it was because
of the amount of work to do *in addition* to ITL's (should there be
enough community funding/donations, of course), and not because of
having/wanting a clear separation, like you just answered
(ITL=commercial version, hired dev(s)=open source version).
WRT my concern that a large donor could steer the project in unwanted
directions Marek answered that it wouldn't be the case. If there is such
a separation between ITL and the open source version, who gets to decide
what is implemented, what is not (or vetoed), and how tasks ("expenses"
in Open Collective) are prioritized/chosen ? I expect it would be ITL's
staff, but it's not mentioned anywhere yet.
Along a similar vein, will there be some review of the code produced by
said hired developer ? A fair concern - if that's not a well known Qubes
dev - is to ensure that the design, code quality, ... is just as good as
what it is now.
After reading Open Collective's FAQ, IIUC the 2 things Open Collective
provides is (1) an easy way to send donations and (2) transparency about
how donations are used ("expenses"), which comes at a cost of 10% +
paypal fees (3% or so). Isn't that amount overkill if a developer is
hired full time ? I mean, wouldn't it be simpler to send money to a
paypal account (ITL's or anybody people would trust), which would then
pay the developer ? Tracking allocated and then spent time (= money) -
for instance with github - should be easy.
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the economic realities ITL faces
and the choice made to work on a commercial/corporate version. But
there's a real need for more clarity about how the whole thing WRT the
"open source" version will be organized, which will surely help with the
amount of donations.
Cheers,
Ivan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"qubes-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to qubes-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to qubes-devel@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-devel/f9ef8f24-31d8-247b-9794-fde71f9fa0f4%40c3i.bg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
