Aaron - I see where you're coming from in your thought processes, but I'm not sure I totally agree with the viewpoint. As what Robert eluded to, the community should be deciding which projects are worthy to be funded and which ones will be left to sit there with little-to-no funding. Especially when we're dealing with a broad range of projects we're dealing with, we don't have a big enough of a coop that would be knowledgeable enough to know what projects would make it and what projects would fail. As one example from the pop music world, there are so many people in this world still scratching their heads wondering how on earth Justin Bieber is making millions with his crap music, myself included.
When we get to new hardware/software concepts that have never been tried before or music genres that are quite popular in countries outside our own or literary works in a style that doesn't happen to be our cup of tea, how are we going to be able to determine what's going to make it and what's going to fail? Now I'm not saying we don't have some sort of filtration process. We'll still want to review to determine these projects are aligning with our values of being totally FLO and they don't sound like they're just in it to make money but to actually deliver a quality product for the public, but for us to sit here and try to determine what will succeed and won't before they're given a chance... I just don't believe that's really for us to decide. It's for the community to decide. Yes, this will mean we'll probably have more failed projects, but we're not guaranteeing anyone success anyway. How many failed projects sit on Github? SourceForge? Jamendo? Soundcloud? deviantart? And yet all five of those sites and more are popular and thought of (in general, not necessarily strictly to the FLO community) as relatively successful and reputable sites. Whether or not we have too many failed projects will not be what determines whether or not Snowdrift is a success. It's whether or not the ones deemed successful by the community receive the type of sustainable funding we set out to try to provide to them. - Jason On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:00 AM, mray <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi there, > > I have two concerns: > 1. We need losers. > 2. Users decide who they are. > > 1. > We need losers because we can't make a commitment to the network effect > without embracing the fact that distribution will differ extremely, even > to a degree where by far MOST projects will not be "winners". > > 2. > We already ask users to let go of *some* control of their finances, they > should at least be able to decide who gets a chance - and who does NOT. > A too strict filter on participating projects also makes finding enough > "losers" harder. I'd expect the "proper" projects to be more realistic > candidates anyway, though. We also could focus on presenting projects in > a way that highlights what we regard as valuable in snowdrifts context: > age, number of developers, number od translations, size of community, > global distribution of authors, usage statistics, whatever else might be > interesting. > > > Otherwise I mostly agree with your post. > > > Robert > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
