Re: revisiting community funding?
Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com writes: I can't think of a single large open source project that doesn't require a contributor agreement in place. Don't be silly; there are hundreds of projects larger, older, and more successful than Clojure that don't require such busywork. On the other hand it's pretty clear that your opinion and my opinion are not relevant regarding topics like this; the project is still using Jira for crying out loud. -Phil -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: revisiting community funding?
I am willing to contribute, and have in the past, but I think that instead of just contributing some cash and hoping things that we want will be worked on, I would propose that we structure it some. In fact, I come up with a few projects that could be of use to the whole community, or at least a large subset of the community. The clojure/ core team could determine how much time that they think it will take to finish a project (or at least make real progress), and then have a fundraising goal for that project. It would be kinda like we are hiring them to work on the projects that we want to see finished. A few ideas of topics: clojure-in-clojure a standard IO API that different VM implementations support Liebke's map/reduce fleshing out clojure.contrib libraries to bring them back to par with contrib 1.2 (a standard API page like what was had through clojure.contrib 1.2 would be REALLY awsome) faster numerics -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: revisiting community funding?
I like BernardH's idea of doing it anonymously; if nobody from Core minds, we could set up an anonymous survey to see how much interest there is. cej38, your suggestions are very soundpersonally, I would love to see curated, distilled APIs for common things a Clojure programmer needs to do from Java or JavaScript, not just I/O. However, it's ultimately a matter of what developers want to do, and what core people think should be done. So long as work leads to improvement of the Clojure language and ecosystemwhich happens continually anywayI don't think one should care where funds go. In the long term, offering bounties for specific things might be a way to spur fast progress of needed things, but I feel that should only be tried after basic community funding works. It seems like open source software development settles into a groove that isn't Pareto efficient, even if it's much better than closed source. Think about how much time we all invest in learning and developing Clojure. The more the ecosystem expands, the more our investments of learning and development come to be worth, and the less likely we are to lose them to some other technology taking over down the road. And yet the ecosystem itself only gets worked on as a second priority to other work. It's a dilemma: either you get unsharable, secret technology worked on full-time, or you get sharable technology part-time (with maintenance dependent on the vicissitudes of life). I'd like to think a generous and not overly expectatious community can transcend it. On Mar 23, 7:12 am, cej38 junkerme...@gmail.com wrote: I am willing to contribute, and have in the past, but I think that instead of just contributing some cash and hoping things that we want will be worked on, I would propose that we structure it some. In fact, I come up with a few projects that could be of use to the whole community, or at least a large subset of the community. The clojure/ core team could determine how much time that they think it will take to finish a project (or at least make real progress), and then have a fundraising goal for that project. It would be kinda like we are hiring them to work on the projects that we want to see finished. A few ideas of topics: clojure-in-clojure a standard IO API that different VM implementations support Liebke's map/reduce fleshing out clojure.contrib libraries to bring them back to par with contrib 1.2 (a standard API page like what was had through clojure.contrib 1.2 would be REALLY awsome) faster numerics -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: revisiting community funding?
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:35 PM, nchurch nchubr...@gmail.com wrote: I like BernardH's idea of doing it anonymously; if nobody from Core minds, we could set up an anonymous survey to see how much interest there is. cej38, your suggestions are very soundpersonally, I would love to see curated, distilled APIs for common things a Clojure programmer needs to do from Java or JavaScript, not just I/O. I'd suggest the I/O library for ClojureJVM be a moderately-thick wrapper around java.io, java.nio, and java.net, incorporating the existing clojure.java.io things and with-open of course. Then implement it on ClojureCLR and ClojureScript (and any others?) to present the same API to users, while doing whatever is necessary under the hood. This *should* work reasonably well, since java.io is already, out of necessity, a common-denominator cross-platform I/O abstraction. In the long term, offering bounties for specific things might be a way to spur fast progress of needed things, but I feel that should only be tried after basic community funding works. An alternative would be to go outside clojure.core and set up a kind of Kickstarter for programmers where people can propose and pledge money to various software developments in general, and those who code and release (with an open license) something that fits the bill get to collect the bounty. (There'd be some interesting dynamics. For instance, someone who can code feature X for Clojure, Debian, or whatever might be tempted to code it but hold off on releasing it until the bounty accumulates more pledges, but that risks being scooped by someone else who started coding later but isn't as greedy. Also, pledges would presumably be expiring, the money returned to the donor from escrow N weeks after being pledged if the program/feature isn't released by then.) Established FOSS development teams like clojure.core could also claim the pot for something they did themselves. Of course, for the requirements for a new feature for an existing FOSS program to be met would require that its devteam accept the patch and release a new version (a public beta, at minimum) with the patch, in most cases; I suppose those who proposed the bounty can decide in advance whether to accept a fork or only a new official version in that case. They need to set criteria for what qualifies as fulfulling the bounty regardless, so that would just be one more criterion. It seems like open source software development settles into a groove that isn't Pareto efficient, even if it's much better than closed source. Think about how much time we all invest in learning and developing Clojure. The more the ecosystem expands, the more our investments of learning and development come to be worth, and the less likely we are to lose them to some other technology taking over down the road. And yet the ecosystem itself only gets worked on as a second priority to other work. That's probably as it should be. The ecosystem itself is, after all, a means to an ends (useful software tools) rather than an end in itself. Things that directly improve the ends (the tools coded in Clojure) will naturally get some priority over things that do so indirectly (ecosystem improvements). That said, one of the less efficient things about the Clojure development process is the whole CA thing. A lot of FOSS projects seem to get by fine without erecting such a barrier to participation. On top of that, I'm not sure the CA thing really protects Clojure from the boogeyman of someone later deciding to rescind their permission to use code they wrote. After 35 years, someone who signed their CA and sent it in can claim termination rights and effectively undo the CA, and if you don't think their code will still be in use in 35 years, sorry, but that isn't where a betting man should be putting his chips. The guys that wrote all those two-digit date fields in all that old COBOL code for various banking systems back in the early 60s clearly didn't expect that code to still be in use on January 1, 2000, and look what happened. :) It's a dilemma: either you get unsharable, secret technology worked on full-time, or you get sharable technology part-time (with maintenance dependent on the vicissitudes of life). I'd like to think a generous and not overly expectatious community can transcend it. Lots already have, notably the Linux community. OT side issue, added because this is the main group of outside-opinion techies I have access to: a Vista box we use for miscellaneous purposes got hit by the System Fix scareware recently. Diagnosis was easy and recovery was complete and only took tdsskiller, another malware scrubber, four reboots, and a couple of hours (aided by having physically shut off the power and restarted in Safe Mode as soon as it was clear that the box had somehow been hacked), but I'd very much like to know how that box got hacked in the first place. Nobody that has access to it isn't tech-savvy. IE
Re: revisiting community funding?
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com wrote: That said, one of the less efficient things about the Clojure development process is the whole CA thing. A lot of FOSS projects seem to get by fine without erecting such a barrier to participation. I can't think of a single large open source project that doesn't require a contributor agreement in place. Various Linux flavors: https://fossbazaar.org/content/open-source-contributor-agreements-some-examples Scala: http://www.scala-lang.org/sites/default/files/contributor_agreement.pdf Python: http://python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ Django: https://www.djangoproject.com/foundation/cla/ Node.js: http://nodejs.org/cla.html Java: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/community/oca-486395.html Apache projects: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt In my search for links, I found that Groovy apparently does not require a written CA. Given all the above, this surprised me. -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ Perfection is the enemy of the good. -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: revisiting community funding?
Me too. mimmo On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:09:31 PM UTC+1, nchurch wrote: There was a brief period of community funding for Rich's work back in 2010. When that ended, we now know the result was Datomica huge win. But there are other people who work on Clojure and Clojurescript; great things could happen from the focus that comes from being able to work on them full time. I know I'd be willing to give a couple hundred to fund such an effort, and given how much people spend to go to conferences, I'd be surprised if many others didn't feel the same way. And then there are now many companies that depend on Clojure. I'm curious how Clojure/core would feel about this. Is there still a concern about creating unreasonable expectations? Are there people outside Clojure/core who would be willing to work on something? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: revisiting community funding?
I would also contribute On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:22:30 AM UTC+11, bernardH wrote: On 20 mar, 21:09, nchurch nchubr...@gmail.com wrote: But there are other people who work on Clojure and Clojurescript; great things could happen from the focus that comes from being able to work on them full time. I know I'd be willing to give a couple hundred to fund such an effort, and given how much people spend to go to conferences, I'd be surprised if many others didn't feel the same way. […Is there still a concern about creating unreasonable expectations? Are there people outside Clojure/core who would be willing to work on something? FWIW, I'd also be willing to contribute on funding. I'd be glad to contribute anonymously if that would avoid any concern of unreasonable expectations (nobody, including Clojure/core member would need to know that *I* contributed). Best Regards, B. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
revisiting community funding?
There was a brief period of community funding for Rich's work back in 2010. When that ended, we now know the result was Datomica huge win. But there are other people who work on Clojure and Clojurescript; great things could happen from the focus that comes from being able to work on them full time. I know I'd be willing to give a couple hundred to fund such an effort, and given how much people spend to go to conferences, I'd be surprised if many others didn't feel the same way. And then there are now many companies that depend on Clojure. I'm curious how Clojure/core would feel about this. Is there still a concern about creating unreasonable expectations? Are there people outside Clojure/core who would be willing to work on something? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: revisiting community funding?
On 20 mar, 21:09, nchurch nchubr...@gmail.com wrote: But there are other people who work on Clojure and Clojurescript; great things could happen from the focus that comes from being able to work on them full time. I know I'd be willing to give a couple hundred to fund such an effort, and given how much people spend to go to conferences, I'd be surprised if many others didn't feel the same way. […Is there still a concern about creating unreasonable expectations? Are there people outside Clojure/core who would be willing to work on something? FWIW, I'd also be willing to contribute on funding. I'd be glad to contribute anonymously if that would avoid any concern of unreasonable expectations (nobody, including Clojure/core member would need to know that *I* contributed). Best Regards, B. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
