So long as maintainers approve bounties in advance, I see no problem with them.
This whole business with guarantees though is a very bad idea. We can't guarantee that a bounty will actually result in a feature being implemented. The bounty needs to be a donation to the foundation. On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 17:19 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 11:16 -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:01:22PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > > On Llu, 2005-03-14 at 13:11, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > > > > > > "If you have a high level of income, then your bugs matters" > > > > "If you are part of our club, then your bugs matters" > > > > > > IMHO Its just a variant on the bounties. If Novell can do bounties why > > > can't 50 users get together and issue a bounty on a matter that annoys > > > them. Is it any different to a business saying to Red Hat or Novell "We > > > need XYZ then we could do 5000 desktops." > > > > I think there was an agreement on "no more bounties", je are just > > finishing to ventilate the existing bounty fund, but not accept new > > bounties funding. > > I don't recall any such agreement. I only remember some easily-fixed > communications problems with the previous bounties. > _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
