There is nothing wrong with the build process...
L3, have you seen uplink's comments on the sticky thread at the top regarding the build process... your thoughts on that? Is he on the wrong track there?
A cop, a priest, and a programmer walk into a bar... stop me if you have heard this before...
I haven't, please post the rest ;-)
Yes. I want your money.
Pity the original poster seems to have bailed from the discussion. I do think it's a very interesting discussion and the points you (L3mce) raise are equally valid. Financial considerations have a way of focussing things that can misdirect and apply all the wrong incentives... but surely there is potential for it to be a positive thing just in terms of assisting with resourcing. Would like to see more discussion on it.
Before anything like this was setup, there would have to be an approval panel, indicating when milestones were reached, or if it is an all or nothing scenario... when it was "done"... how many bugs can be expected... and someone would have to deal with the complaints and varying levels of dissatisfaction etc. If people are incentivized to do projects, they will not upload their code until it is finished, or there will be squabbling if someone corrects/adds to it... If it is milestone based, people will not ever complete the end result... It sounds like a nightmare to me...
But yes... I want your money.
Please shoot down in flames... I'm very very new to linuxmce, the community etc so I'm sure I will have the culture all wrong... but would it be so bad if there were a mechanism by which someone could "buy" a dev's time to work on a particular feature that would assist them and the agreement/arrangement could be purely between the dev(s) involved and the user. There could be some basic principles, for example, that any code generated is free and open to all when done and that the user who paid cannot object if it is later modified or changed as part of LMCE (they can always fork their own bit if they don't like that or whatever). Then the agreement is really just between the individual parties and only the dev(s) and users involved worry about whether the end result meets the requirement.
Could something like that not allow some devs to potentially set aside more time than they currently do because now they could be remunerated for that extra time? And hopefully the very simple and basic rules like I suggested would mean that the things that get done are not *bad* for the project.... they're just things that might not have been at the top of the priority list otherwise... so they actually contribute to the project overall AND allow for extra resourcing because devs are able to commit more time overall due to the remuneration possibility. Maybe, it would even incentivise more people to get involved in development, realising if they skilled up appropriately, they could potentially be compensated for their time?
Just thoughts ;-)
Big thanks to all the devs for their awesome contribution of time. Certainly the last thing I would like to see is the open nature of this amazing project being compromised. But it is possibly something that coudl be discussed.