NEW THREAD: split from another thread on similar subject.... please can people comment on these ideas and add their own. I split this out because the other thread hasn't addressed these points directly. Please only post in this thread if your comments directly relate to these ideas. Anything else can go in the other thread!
I think that idea of a central Donate option/pool-of-funds is a good idea....
....that being said, there needs to be some governance around it before we jump into such a scheme. A Charter needs to be implemented to provide this governance, voted on by the community and implemented. We can't have the fund unaccountable to those that are contributing, and there needs to be some kind of consensus on how it is spent, and visibility.
Some suggested principles - please comment:
Any Paypal-type account should have several senior/long-term members with access to it. (ie no potential for lock out)
The vision for the fund should be for the furtherance of LinuxMCE generally, and where possible, to provide benefit to as many members as possible.
The fund should be directed to providing features/benefits/bug-fixes/shows/exposure that would otherwise not occur/not occur for a considerable period of time (expedition), rather than as a form of revenue for developers.
Any draw-down on the funds should be by general consensus only. *
Any such paid projects should be published in a sticky, and on the main website (news section?)
A consolidated list of suggested projects/feature-requests/etc, should be maintained by the forum moderators in a sticky topic. This list can be reviewed by the developers in their regular steering committee meetings (a la jimbodude), prioritised, and the leading options put forward to a consensus vote in the forums *
Non-dev forum members should have the option to advance other items in the consolidated list via consensus vote in the forums - these items/projects will be considered for funding after the steering committee's list.
None of the above should prevent any forum member(s) from directly reaching an agreement with a dev to perform specific work-for-cash outside this funding arrangement.
* - we need to derive how "general consensus" / "consensus vote" is defined. I feel that those who have contributed should have priority, perhaps even in proportion to their contributions (ie, $1 = 1 vote), and my feeling is that those who have not contributed to the fund, should not really have a say. But to achieve greater fairness, systems such as Preferencial Voting and Proportional Representation should also be considered, rather than simple majorities/first-past-the-post approaches.... discuss...