Hi,
sorry for the cross post, the issue is of interest of both community.
Lately Jira got a new “Doney” plugin that allows to make donations targeted at a certain issue, e.g.:
https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-5869
https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-4000
Now… as far as I know the projects are not setup to handle donations and decide how to assign the money to the actual resolution of issues (how do we put a target amount? how do we assign who works on it?)
Imho, we should either organize ourselves to leverage that, or ask Codehaus to remove that plugin from our jira sites…
Opinions?
Cheers
Andrea
–
Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
Looking at it I think it needs to be as complicated as your questions imply.
You don’t need to set a target amount. People just post the incentive for what it is worth to them. If no one fixes then no one does.
Any developer (even non core committers, though that’s unlikely) can then make a patch for it. Then the money can go to them.
I guess maybe there needs to be one account for the project?
I’m inclined to just leave it there, and then figure out the details if anyone actually posts an amount that would motivate anyone on the project to do anything. If they do then we found a new way to get some money in, and that’s great. And we can sort out more details. If no one uses it that’s fine too.
But the company will hold the money in escrow until we set up an account, so there’s no downside I see.
···
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Andrea Aime <andrea.aime@anonymised.com> wrote:
Hi,
sorry for the cross post, the issue is of interest of both community.
Lately Jira got a new “Doney” plugin that allows to make donations targeted at a certain issue, e.g.:
https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-5869
https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-4000
Now… as far as I know the projects are not setup to handle donations and decide how to assign the money to the actual resolution of issues (how do we put a target amount? how do we assign who works on it?)
Imho, we should either organize ourselves to leverage that, or ask Codehaus to remove that plugin from our jira sites…
Opinions?
Cheers
Andrea
–
Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
GeoTools-Devel mailing list
GeoTools-Devel@anonymised.coms.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Chris Holmes <cholmes@anonymised.com> wrote:
Looking at it I think it needs to be as complicated as your questions
imply.
You don't need to set a target amount. People just post the incentive for
what it is worth to them. If no one fixes then no one does.
I can be ok with the rest, but this point seems really weird to me.
Like, I would never allocate money on a ticket without knowing what the
total amount needed to solve the issue is?
Do you think the funding for OL3 would have gone well if they did not set
an expectation beforehand?
Given that every bug fix needs a test, probably a backport to the stable
series, and if it's not the maintainer doing the work,
a review, I'd say there is no such a thing like a 100$ fix that people
could just carelessly put money against.
Cheers
Andrea
--
Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
-------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Andrea Aime
<andrea.aime@anonymised.com>wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Chris Holmes <cholmes@anonymised.com> wrote:
Looking at it I think it needs to be as complicated as your questions
imply.
You don't need to set a target amount. People just post the incentive for
what it is worth to them. If no one fixes then no one does.
I can be ok with the rest, but this point seems really weird to me.
Like, I would never allocate money on a ticket without knowing what the
total amount needed to solve the issue is?
Do you think the funding for OL3 would have gone well if they did not set
an expectation beforehand?
Given that every bug fix needs a test, probably a backport to the stable
series, and if it's not the maintainer doing the work,
a review, I'd say there is no such a thing like a 100$ fix that people
could just carelessly put money against.
Yeah, I'd agree. But I think this system doesn't really support the setting
of amount. I guess I'd just see this thing as a way to start that
conversation, and to get across to people we are open to it. People likely
will use the more normal avenue, just emailing a core developer to ask.
This is just another potential way in. I think if we get a number of people
putting $100 up then we can revisit the process. I'm not convinced than
many people will, but it'd still be an interesting data point to learn from.
Cheers
Andrea
--
Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
-------------------------------------------------------