On Tuesday 20 August 2002 05:25, Waldo Bastian wrote:
...
> Yes, I think this idea is nice to get all warm and fuzzy about but
> I don't think it belongs in KDE. Having a voting system would be
> usefull to direct the attention of developers to issues that are
> perceived important by our users. I don't think that involving
> money in that process will make it work any better.

Stuffing internet polls is not difficult, a bug voting system is 
susceptible to the same abuse. There's a disincentive to stuff a poll 
when you have to pay to do it, and if someone does do it there's the 
benefit that the proceeds go to a non profit org.

There's also the fact that a non-negligible donations have been 
offered for the development of KMail features. But these potential 
donations have been lost, perhaps because it's insulting for a 
developer who has given many thousands of dollars worth of their time 
to accept a few hundred bucks to implement a feature.

> I think the basis for this idea stems from the "developers don't
> make what I want" complaint from certain users, followed by the
> mandatory "but you don't pay us" response.

That's not where the idea comes from. I've come to care more about 
developers who give a lot and ask for nothing in return than those 
end users who complain much and give little.

> The problem with this
> response is that it is very hard to find actual developers who are
> indeed willing to code for money.

I'm not sure what you mean.

> Still I don't think that some sort of pseudo-charity-code-for-money
> system is the way to go. It will create expectations that are bound
> to remain unfullfilled at some time and KDE will be blamed for it.

We already receive a lot of bugs@kde.org emails from disgrunted users, 
well at least I do, so this wouldn't be anything new. As I stated in 
my last email I think we should clearly state that contributions are 
donations and there is no guarantee of work being done. If that is 
communicated to users then they have no legitimate basis for 
complaint.

Furthermore it makes sense to give contributors, say, a month to check 
if their bug is really fixed. If not they can reassign their donation 
to another bug.

> Also the choice of charity(s) will be bound to cause controversy.
> Read the archives of kde-cafe to see what I mean.

If it's really a problem to decide on a charity, then we can limit 
donations to KDE e.V. only.

> The way to handle the "pay-to-code" problem is IMO to have some
> sort of KDE consultancy services where companies and individuals
> can register themselves and where users with money to spend can buy
> features based on legally binding contracts with whoever promises
> to implement such feature.

I'm not necessarily against such an idea, but I do think there is the 
risk that deserving developers who are not, let's say, assertive 
enough to take such contracts will be unfairly passed over.

Unfortunately I don't think donations from the scheme I've proposed 
would cover the salary of even a single developer at the moment. But 
I hope a smaller sum donated to KDE e.V. could still be put to a good 
use such as paying for transport and accomodation costs so that 
developers can gather together.

While these expenses may be affordable for a fully paid KDE developer, 
I believe they are sadly out of the reach of many volunteer 
developers.

I am prepared to implement the voting system I have described. I guess 
it's ultimately up to Coolo and Daniel to decide whether they would 
like to accept my offer. It would be nice to receive a reply from 
them.

Don.