Thinking out of the box for a moment. What about having documentation bounties? I am sure there are can be "Dilbertesque" issues to those too, but I had floated around the idea of group sponsoring a retired librarian, consultant, or part time librarian to devote serious amounts of hours to work on documentation projects. I have had success with using an intern, but they still needed me to proofread everything and be trained and supervised.
Just a thought. Thanks, Yamil On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Rogan Hamby <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll be honest it's partially unclear because this is bouncing it off people > thing at this point in time. This probably frustrates some people but I > think these are things that as a community we should have dialogues about. > > If I were asked to put forth my personal vision it would be something like > this: > > The community votes on bugs over X age (a year old?) using some kind of > mechanism and presumably ranks based on priority. We then offer bug > bounties on a set rate to Y number of bugs based on how much we have in that > fund. Let's say we have $1,000 and pay $100 per bug, then we can offer it > to the top ten bugs ranked by people's votes. > > There are flaws with that approach. Some may say it does't give weight to > payments based on complexity of bug (and that's true) and some would say it > doesn't weigh importance of more recent bugs (and that's true). Fixing > those things add issues of their own and maybe we want to take those issues > on. That's part of why I'm throwing it out. > > >
