On 22 March 2012 21:53, Stefan Behnel <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Bradshaw, 22.03.2012 19:39: >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote: >>> Regarding funding in general, maybe we should just start putting up one or >>> two of those sexy funding bars on our web site, like the PyPy devs do for >>> their funded projects. Assuming that goes well, it would also allow us to >>> put money on dedicated projects by paying basically ourselves for doing >>> tasks that we won't normally spend our precious spare time on (e.g. because >>> they appear too large for a weekend), but that we and our users deem >>> necessary for some reason. >> >> While that's a good idea in theory, I'm not sure how many additional >> hours would be freed up just because we could pay ourselves for it. > > And if more than one person frees hours for a given project, how would we > distribute the money? And how do we know we can still trust each other when > it comes to counting the hours? ;) > > >> Perhaps it would act primarily as an additional incentive to align our >> efforts with user request (though there are certainly already >> non-monetary incentives). > > There sure are, and I'm sure that won't change. We should see it as an > addition to what we invest voluntarily. No-one's going to pay for code > cleanup and refactoring, for example, or for tweaks and "having fun at the > weekend" code and "I hate that being slow" optimisations. > > We are not necessarily talking about large projects here that represent > person months of value. If I were to decide if I'd start implementing a > feature that looks like taking me, say, 10 days, and I'm not seriously > self-motivated in doing it, I won't even start because I know that I'll > have enough other things to do in the meantime that weigh in equally for > me. But, when I know I'll be paid for doing it, I'll certainly consider > shifting my priorities. And even if it takes three months to finish it in > my spare time, it would still be done in the end, which is much better than > just staying an open tracker entry forever. > > >> the >> monetization of Cython development changes the spirit of things a bit, >> and while I am a big fan of people being able to make money, or even a >> living, off of open source development > > I think if that works depends a lot on what you do exactly, who the users > are and also what you do in order to sell it (and yourself). It doesn't > work for every project and certainly not for everyone. > > >> it complicates things a lot >> from a legal, financial, and political perspective. > > Yes, I'm seeing that, too. But in any case, before it comes to asking for > donations for a given feature/project/fix/whatever, one of the first > questions will be: who can do it? And when? I think that will kill a lot of > political hassle early enough (although hopefully not the project in > question ;). > > >> The current model of organization X is willing to pay developer Y for >> feature Z directly seems to work well enough for the moment. > > That would still work. However, a donation based model would allow us to > lower the barrier. Paying a whole feature may be too much for a single > (smaller) company, and they would have to know exactly what they want in > order to ask us to do it for them. If, instead, we put up a list of > projects we consider worth doing and they can make a donation of, say, 5% > or 10% of the actual sum and let others pay for the same feature as well, > they can just use it to show their appreciation for the general gain we > give them, without desperately needing a given feature themselves. It would > also allow users to contribute money for "nice to have" features, which is > otherwise less likely to happen. > > >> E.g. with >> GSoC, the bottleneck is finding good enough students and time to >> mentor them, not slots (=funding). > > The mentors are not getting paid in a GSoC. So we invest our time by > guiding the student, and that's regardless of the usability of the outcome. > Even if there is an outcome, it's not unheard of that the mere overhead of > cleaning up and integrating the contribution comes close to reimplementing > it. It doesn't always work out as well as with Dag and Mark. > > I'm not saying GSoCs are bad - we've certainly had a boost of overall > development power through them. But they are just one way to fund the > development, and not always the best one. > > >> Opening up funding to non-students >> could help a bit, but IMHO wouldn't change the balance that much (the >> gainfully employed cost a lot more and have less spare time). > > It's certainly not the right way to attract new developers. But it's a way > to advance the development. > > Stefan > _______________________________________________ > cython-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
This may be OT for this thread, but sas numpy removed at some point from Jenkins? I'm seeing this for all python versions since Februari 25: Following tests excluded because of missing dependencies on your system: run.memoryviewattrs run.numpy_ValueError_T172 run.numpy_bufacc_T155 run.numpy_cimport run.numpy_memoryview run.numpy_parallel run.numpy_test ALL DONE _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
