Thanks to everyone that has participated in the discussion thus far. :)
I think there have been a number of solid concerns and issues raised,
which I'm going to try and wrap into a proposal below.
I think it might help simplify the donations goal by framing it in the
following way:
Ultimately, wh
On 06/15/2013 02:18 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:25:26AM -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
>> Charles Plessy wrote:
>>> In the case of Debian, I share with others the concern of having
>>> the packages as a source of revenue
>>
>> How about making fixed bugs a source of revenue
On 06/14/2013 09:45 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> thanks for your work on web payments. I hope that they will be a
> lead contribution to the development of Free works.
And thanks to you for taking part in the conversation and helping us
build something that will hopefully lead to more resources f
On 06/14/2013 07:29 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> I disagree. Some packages make _a lot_ of work and some people
>> spend thousands of hours to make Debian an excellent distribution
>> and the package in particular useful and maintainable. This is in
>> many cases not less work than being ups
On 06/14/2013 06:50 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Anyone can locate a particular Debian contributor and wire them 15
> Bitcoin. No need for Debian to support that.
I don't think you mean 'anyone'. I think you mean 'a highly skilled
programmer that understands how open source software is built an
On 06/14/2013 05:24 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 05:14:27PM -0400, Manu Sporny wrote:
>> I agree, which is why the payment details live completely outside
>> the Debian systems. The only thing you'd need to initiate payment
>> is an e-mail address, or a PaySwarm financial a
On 06/14/2013 02:54 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> As a member of the bitcoin team in debian, I also see how easy it
> could be in the future to semi-anonymously receive payment from and
> to anywhere in the world for such work, and that this may already be
> going on already in Debian or other distr
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:48:27AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On 14-06-13 23:24, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > Right, but this leads to one of two things:
> >
> > - No money is shared with dependencies (leading to people flocking to
> > awesomewm, gnome, kde, chrome, wine, apache2, etc)
>
* Wouter Verhelst , 2013-06-15, 11:48:
What happens with the money should be decided by the maintainers of the
package. Before you'll see "flocking", there will have been such a
decision already (otherwise there's no money and thus no "flocking").
Given that, I can see only a few possible outco
On 14-06-13 23:24, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Right, but this leads to one of two things:
>
> - No money is shared with dependencies (leading to people flocking to
> awesomewm, gnome, kde, chrome, wine, apache2, etc)
>
> - Money is shared with dependencies (leading to people flocking to
>
On 15-06-13 06:07, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think the tension gets much worse if
> the project is explicitly deciding to pay some people and not others.
While that is true, I do not believe that the proposed scheme results in
"the project (...) deciding to pay". If done right, this could simply be
On Samstag, 15. Juni 2013, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> I agree. It would add a whole new dimension to NMU'ing, orphaning,
> adopting, and salvaging packages with a large user base. For example,
> currently most people would probably happily accept co-maintainers even
> if they're confident that they cou
Hi,
On Samstag, 15. Juni 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
> There were some past experiments with this in Debian, and they caused a
> lot of social controversy.
>
> One of the problems with paying for work in the Debian context is that
> we're a world-wide project that welcomes contributions from everyo
13 matches
Mail list logo
