It is already more or less the case since core dev can get paid to implement whatever a customer wants.
The goal is to: - be aware that relying too much on free work does not scale - then find a way to turn some amount of free work into paid work - and make sure the money does not decrease the common good On 06/11/2015 23:20, Nathan Woodrow wrote: > I agree with Nyall. It should not turn into a pay to win model. > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Nyall Dawson <nyall.daw...@gmail.com > <mailto:nyall.daw...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 7 Nov 2015 12:22 AM, "Hugo Mercier" <hugo.merc...@oslandia.com > <mailto:hugo.merc...@oslandia.com>> wrote: > > > - if a company with no core developer wants to ensure a new feature is > > accepted, it should pay another core developer for the reviewing part. > > Ideally the money should go to the project and the project would decide > > what core developer(s) to pay. > > The details of this process are not very clear. It still has to be > > discussed. But the goal is to make clear for everyone that if you want > > guarantee: you have to pay for it and there is a clear process to handle > > that. > > In general I like the way this discussion is going. But I disagree > strongly with this point. It effectively kills off any contributions > from organisations/individuals who want to contribute via code but > can't contribute financially (eg universities, etc). We don't want > to lose that. > > It also means the entire project becomes 100% dependant on > financing. At the moment a huge chunk (probably the majority) of > QGIS work is volunteer or via non-funded contributions. > > Couldn't this just be worked out by sponsored devs/companies on a > case by case basis? Eg if timing is critical then line up a reviewer > for speedy review prior to quoting for work and factor into their > original quote the cost for this. > > Nyall > > > > > - writing a QEP before adding a new feature is a good way to increase > > its acceptance. But some people have to review it. We may come to the > > same process to pay for QEP reviews. > > > > - at which point we rely on volunteer work is not yet clear. But the > > current guess is: still too much. Having a better idea of the ratio > > between free work and paid work would be profitable for the > project: it > > would allow to make clear what the reality of an open source project > > like QGIS is and that too much free work is not sustainable. Paolo's > > mail is about that. The goal is to (begin to) separate clearly what is > > the part of free work and the part of paid work in the project. > > > > - see on the PSC side if it is possible to pay some people to handle > > global maintenance : PR triage, reviews, small bug fixes and so on. It > > does not have to be only one developer. > > > > Thanks for participating in this discussion. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Qgis-developer mailing list > > Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org> > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
