I don't think this a case of a "troll" - it is an opportunity to describe the ASF as software for the public good. As a non-profit. The OP's idea is not too bad and if developers were interested then they could work on it on their own outside the project. If the submitted patches are accepted the enhancement would make it in, but there are no guarantees and money is in no way a deciding factor. Technical merit is the criteria.
Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2012, at 7:07 AM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > Please do not feed the troll. Thanks. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Shannon Jacobs <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: >> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 12:51 AM >> Subject: Would like to help, but... >> >> Feels like I should start by saying that I'm actually one of those weirdos >> who used to pay for shareware and such. I admit that I mostly used the >> freely available software freely and without paying for it, but there were >> also a number of times that I paid for the premium versions, and even a >> couple of times when I paid the ransom after the free trial period had >> expired. Unfortunately, I never felt that I got more by donating and in >> most cases the programs in question soon disappeared anyway. I mostly >> concluded that competent programmers aren't going to stay with that >> economic model. My best guess is that some of them were hoping to strike it >> rich, but they didn't, so they gave up. However, why would I want them to >> help them strike it rich, even if their program was great? I don't Las >> Vegas economic models, either. >> >> Meanwhile, I hate the anti-freedom anti-choice policies of Microsoft, >> Apple, Oracle, and increasingly the google, too. However, their economic >> models work. >> >> I would prefer to support you with some money, but I still doubt you'll >> survive. Actually, the Sun fiasco has had me using LibreOffice most of the >> time these days... >> >> What I would like is an option to pay by the feature on a small project >> basis. I would buy one or more shares in features that I wanted, where the >> project budget would include such things as testing and programmer time, >> etc. The new features would be selected as enough people agreed to pay for >> them. The structure I would suggest would actually leave you holding the >> money as a kind of charity stock brokerage. Some of the projects might >> involve support in various forms, of course. >> >> However I've been advocating this sort of thing for some years. The closest >> thing I've seen is Kickstarter, but they seem to be completely lacking in >> project management. My suggestion would be more like "reverse auction >> charity shares". Unless someone does something like that, I'm not >> likely to >> donate again... I'm convinced the economic model is as important as the >> software. >> >> >> -- >> Freedom. It's about meaningful and unconstrained choice, not beer. >>
