On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 01:19 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: > > Starting to pay individual work is a real danger we should be careful of.
Agreed but... > Mozilla is quite hard to compare with us. I know many of the Mozilla > folks, and they are in a much more luxury situation than we are. The question is why? What is it about Mozilla that is different from OOo? > Sorry for being the bad guy in here, but spending money on work time for > volunteers in my opinion puts us at a very big risk. A risk we should > not take. Question is how to define what is volunteer work and what is not. Oracle pay people for doing work of the same type that volunteers do. The real issue is that Oracle provides the money so they can choose how to spend it. It is certainly more difficult for general money under the control of team OOo or the CC to be spent on work time without causing problems - in fact there are problems on travel expenses because some people get them covered and some don't. One way to pay volunteers for work would be for a group of volunteers to raise money eg through an EU grant or other enterprise and use it to target specific parts of the project. That is really no different from Oracle paying the engineers or Louis. > Let's see what others say. What I'm saying is that the principle of paying some people and not others is already set, the issue is more about the mechanism for payment and the priority and methods for raising funds and who controls them than it is the principle. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications A new approach to assessment for learning www.theINGOTs.org - 01827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
