I hope Jared hasn't been scared off by all this discussion generated - it
is my personal opinion that the way he is hoping to do this is not likely
to be effective or possible to achieve.
Rather, if he genuinely wants to advance development on a specific port, I
believe the best way to do it is to
On 5/1/2010 7:50 AM, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Am 01.05.2010 09:37, schrieb Alex Parker:
On 01/05/10 04:01, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Still, other may disagree :)
Alex
Right, I disagree. None of the points you mentioned particularly speaks
against bounties. I especially find the idea stupid to disa
Am 01.05.2010 09:37, schrieb Alex Parker:
On 01/05/10 04:01, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Still, other may disagree :)
Alex
Right, I disagree. None of the points you mentioned particularly speaks
against bounties. I especially find the idea stupid to disallow payments
to work on our project just be
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Dave Chapman wrote:
> But basically, I think the only rule should be that targets are only added
> to that page with the general agreement of the community. i.e. someone
> would nominate a target for inclusion, and then we would try to reach a
> consensus...
>
> D
But basically, I think the only rule should be that targets are only
added to that page with the general agreement of the community. i.e.
someone would nominate a target for inclusion, and then we would try
to reach a consensus...
A nomination system would be great. I was thinking in line wit
Paul Louden wrote:
So I'm wondering if one easy (and free!) thing someone could do is to
collect this information together in some kind of "Future targets"
wiki page, to try and promote these as tasks people could work on.
We should probably set some minimum requirement for the "future target"
So I'm wondering if one easy (and free!) thing someone could do is to
collect this information together in some kind of "Future targets"
wiki page, to try and promote these as tasks people could work on.
We should probably set some minimum requirement for the "future target"
page so that it's
Daniel Stenberg wrote:
I like the idea of bounties, because it still works good together with
the open source idea.
I disagree. Bounties are very hard to make work in the open source
spirit. I believe it _can_ be done, but it's not easy.
So what (if anything) can work in attracting developer
On 01/05/10 10:20, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2010, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Not all. I think boundy/paid work is a good way to get stuff actually
done in the FOSS world since otherwise work will only be done on a
"yea, in this moment I'm concerned about this, but maybe not anymore
next
On Sat, 1 May 2010, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Not all. I think boundy/paid work is a good way to get stuff actually done
in the FOSS world since otherwise work will only be done on a "yea, in this
moment I'm concerned about this, but maybe not anymore next week" - if at
all. People getting paid to
Just to clarify slightly, I don't think that bounties being paid for
work that reuses previous work is necessarily bad (it is impossible to
do anything otherwise) - I just think depending on circumstance it can
lead to bad blood, and be hard to administer (how do you decide who gets
what if som
On 01/05/10 04:01, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Still, other may disagree :)
Alex
Right, I disagree. None of the points you mentioned particularly speaks
against bounties. I especially find the idea stupid to disallow payments
to work on our project just because it ignores the lot of work that
alrea
Am 01.05.2010 01:18, schrieb Paul Louden:
Sorry about that, didn't read down that far on the etiquette section I
guess.
We do like our ettiquette :)
Anyhow, it appears this bounty thing is not going to work. Please
forget I
mentioned it.
Please don't feel discouraged due to individu
And Paul just dropped some key nuggets above.
On 04/30/2010 07:12 PM, Jared Albers wrote:
> Anyhow, it appears this bounty thing is not going to work. Please forget I
> mentioned it.
It could work (though I know there are many who strongly feel bounties
are a no-go). The idea of supporting a project financially is an
attractive one, the is
Sorry about that, didn't read down that far on the etiquette section I
guess.
Anyhow, it appears this bounty thing is not going to work. Please forget I
mentioned it.
It could work, but you need to approach it with a few specific thoughts:
1) Recognize that an awful lot of work has alrea
> Hello Jared,
>
> please do not top-post to this list as our mailing list etiquette asks
> you to do. Thanks.
>
>
> - Dominik
Sorry about that, didn't read down that far on the etiquette section I
guess.
Anyhow, it appears this bounty thing is not going to work. Please forget I
mentioned i
No, there would need to be discrimination, as it is my understanding that
Linux is a much harder beast to port.
In reality, a new line item for Rockbox would need to be added and the
percentages of the bounty shifted accordingly.
On 4/30/10 4:55 PM, "Paul Louden" wrote:
> I guess, I'm trying t
Hello Jared,
please do not top-post to this list as our mailing list etiquette asks
you to do. Thanks.
- Dominik
I guess, I'm trying to ask "what do you mean by the 'Linux' line"?
Could that be improved to "Linux or Rockbox" to indicate that the bounty
doesn't discriminate about which project you're trying to contribute to?
Its a working document. I'm seeking knowledgeable people who might better
understand how the bounty could be better distributed. Its ultimately just
an example.
On 4/30/10 4:43 PM, "Paul Louden" wrote:
> On 4/30/2010 5:40 PM, Jared Albers wrote:
>> Its not meant to be structured like that. I si
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Alex Parker wrote:
> I plain don't like bounties. They ignore all the work that has been already
[...]
>
> Still, other may disagree :)
However, I do agree :)
- Dominik
On 4/30/2010 5:40 PM, Jared Albers wrote:
Its not meant to be structured like that. I simply am unaware of all the
pieces needed to get rockbox support. That is why they aren't listed on the
spreadsheet. But the bounty is meant to include Rockbox as well.
But there's a flat 40% reserved for Linux
Its not meant to be structured like that. I simply am unaware of all the
pieces needed to get rockbox support. That is why they aren't listed on the
spreadsheet. But the bounty is meant to include Rockbox as well.
On 4/30/10 4:33 PM, "Paul Louden" wrote:
> I note that your entire bounty structu
Whilst not wanting to rain on your parade, let me just state my personal
view.
I plain don't like bounties. They ignore all the work that has been
already done, they can lead to bad blood, are hard to administer, and
unless the money is huge are useless in terms of getting someone with
the r
A further thought on the bounty structure - it might make sense to
incorporate a flat percentage of all bounties as dedicated to the
projects supporting the hardware rather than the programmer. For
example, split 50/50 between programmer and project, as a nod toward the
many, many people who've
I note that your entire bounty structure is focused on getting Linux
support.
Given that this is the Rockbox list, and you've offered no final value
to Rockbox support, do you really think this proposal belongs here?
27 matches
Mail list logo
