Am 17.05.2010 23:50, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:43:19PM -0500, David Farning wrote: >> One consideration is that these deployment specific issues are often >> boring -- stuff like bug fixes. As such we are paying the developers >> the going rate rate for developers in their country or region. This >> brings three advantages: >> 1. The deployment issues are fixed. >> 2. These fixes are pushed upstream for inclusion into Sugar. >> 3. There is a growing pool of skilled developers, with knowledge of >> how to work with the Sugar community, co-located with deployment > > Another (quite related) consideration is the risk of discouraging > similar volunteer efforts. This brings (at least) two disadvantages: > 1. Increasing the gap between developers and users. > 2. Encumbering the project with (more) discrete communiction.
Luke raised similar concerns during the "Sugar Labs Budget" discussion last April and I still stick to my reply from back then (http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-April/005028.html): Quote from http://mako.cc/writing/funding_volunteers/funding_volunteers.html: "Done critically, creatively, and transparently, voluntary free software projects can use money and paid labor to a tremendous benefit that only magnifies their accomplishments." I personally think this is something that Sugar Labs should be aiming for. Also I think it's important to realize there's a difference between paying development and paying developers. As a Sugar user I don't particularly care about who commits the code or writes the documentation as long as the job of fixing bugs and improving and advancing the platform gets done. Christoph -- Christoph Derndorfer co-editor, www.olpcnews.com e-mail: [email protected] _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
