Re: Funding 2011?
On 4 January 2011 19:20, Jon Seltzer seltzer1...@gmail.com wrote: Why not update the funding from simple donation to a purchase of clojure/core software like a refined version of the eclipse plugin or some other incentive based approach? I think I understand why rich might find 'donation' approach a bit uncomfortable. Perhaps the main distinction between the donation and purchase approaches is paying for software development vs. paying for finished software. The first one may convey a sense of entitlement to influence where the project is going, whereas paying for a finished product is just that: You can read the features list / release notes before you buy. I was going to suggest an optional purchase price for Clojure 1.3 when it's finally released, without any premium content added -- just the option of paying for the new version, or not paying for it. However, in some way this *feels* very different to me compared to a donation, even if the expense would be the same, objectively. Maybe somebody else is able to put this feeling into words ... ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Funding 2011?
I completely understand the Rich desire to keep flexibility and fun in Clojure development. And I think it is important for the success of Clojure. As for me a donation is much more about what is already done and enforces little if any obligations. I hope Rich will accept them from people who decides to do so if that is still important for Clojure development. I really doubt that sense of entitlement is prevalent in the community. Personally I trust the decisions of Clojure team and believe they evolve the language in the best ways. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Funding 2011?
On Nov 28, 2010, at 9:07 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote: In Dec 2009, Rich asked the community to step up and support core development -- and the community came through. I'm interested in clojure, but not using it professionally yet. I was wondering if funding for 2011 has already been worked out, or if it is an open question? I was going to continue the funding effort, but have decided against it for the reasons given here: http://clojure.org/funding Many thanks to those who participated, Rich p.s. If you participated during the brief interval when funding was directed at Clojure/core, your contribution will be refunded. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Funding 2011?
I was going to continue the funding effort, but have decided against it for the reasons given here: http://clojure.org/funding Many thanks to those who participated, I donated in 2010 and was going to donate for 2011 in a week's time. I never had any sense of entitlement -- for a lot of people funding the project was a way of showing that we care. I understand what you are talking about and this is very depressing... Regards, BG -- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose at gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Funding 2011?
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 09:31:13 -0500 Rich Hickey richhic...@gmail.com wrote: On Nov 28, 2010, at 9:07 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote: In Dec 2009, Rich asked the community to step up and support core development -- and the community came through. I'm interested in clojure, but not using it professionally yet. I was wondering if funding for 2011 has already been worked out, or if it is an open question? I was going to continue the funding effort, but have decided against it for the reasons given here: http://clojure.org/funding Many thanks to those who participated, That is very sad, but I do understand the problem. Possibly an approach like that taken by FreeBSD - with a foundation that is legally distinct from the core developers - might work for you: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/about.shtml mike -- Mike Meyer m...@mired.org http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Funding 2011?
2011/1/4 Rich Hickey richhic...@gmail.com On Nov 28, 2010, at 9:07 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote: In Dec 2009, Rich asked the community to step up and support core development -- and the community came through. I'm interested in clojure, but not using it professionally yet. I was wondering if funding for 2011 has already been worked out, or if it is an open question? I was going to continue the funding effort, but have decided against it for the reasons given here: http://clojure.org/funding Many thanks to those who participated, I was going to reiterate my participation to the funding effort, without any hesitation, so right now I'm a little bit surprised, and am having mixed feelings about this. I think I'll let things calm down, and maybe react non-emotionally later if I find it appropriate. Rich, we're *with* you ! (and hopefully not *on your* shoulders) -- Laurent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Funding 2011?
Hi Rich, On 4 January 2011 06:31, Rich Hickey richhic...@gmail.com wrote: I was going to continue the funding effort, but have decided against it for the reasons given here: Regarding the entitlement [...] as to what I do with my time, I believe I know of one of the discussions that lead you to this conclusion. It seems this discussion originated from a community member's desire for a Clojure roadmap of some sorts, but quickly died from emotional buttons having been pushed. As for me, I too would appreciate a central place to read about the next big things you are working on (apparently dev.clojure.org is in the process of becoming this place), but am excited about the direction Clojure is taking right now and would gladly donate if you decided to accept funding again in the future. Regards, -- Daniel -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Funding 2011?
On Jan 4, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Daniel Werner wrote: Hi Rich, On 4 January 2011 06:31, Rich Hickey richhic...@gmail.com wrote: I was going to continue the funding effort, but have decided against it for the reasons given here: Regarding the entitlement [...] as to what I do with my time, I believe I know of one of the discussions that lead you to this conclusion. It seems this discussion originated from a community member's desire for a Clojure roadmap of some sorts, but quickly died from emotional buttons having been pushed. As for me, I too would appreciate a central place to read about the next big things you are working on (apparently dev.clojure.org is in the process of becoming this place), but am excited about the direction Clojure is taking right now and would gladly donate if you decided to accept funding again in the future. The Confluence instance at: http://dev.clojure.org/ is definitely that place and is positively overflowing with design docs and plans. And: http://dev.clojure.org/jira/ lets you follow issues and changes being made. Clojure has never had a roadmap and won't have one any time soon. Things get done when they can get done, given need and people with the inclination, willingness, time and ability to do them (myself included). That has always been the case. It has never been the case that at the beginning of a particular year I could have predicted what would have been the big features developed that year. Some things get hot and get done, while others need more thinking time. I'm comfortable with that and happy with the results. People need to be cautious not to become too infatuated with planning and the ability to see the future than is supportable by an open source project of this size. Rich -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Funding 2011?
For what it's worth, I am really glad of the position Rich is taking on a roadmap and Clojure's future development. I would much rather Clojure remained fresh, innovative and agile, and that it continues to offer unexpected, delightful new features and abilities. It can't really do that if Rich has to work through a years worth of mundane improvements he's already committed to before he can implement a new idea. -Luke On Jan 4, 11:45 am, Rich Hickey richhic...@gmail.com wrote: On Jan 4, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Daniel Werner wrote: Hi Rich, On 4 January 2011 06:31, Rich Hickey richhic...@gmail.com wrote: I was going to continue the funding effort, but have decided against it for the reasons given here: Regarding the entitlement [...] as to what I do with my time, I believe I know of one of the discussions that lead you to this conclusion. It seems this discussion originated from a community member's desire for a Clojure roadmap of some sorts, but quickly died from emotional buttons having been pushed. As for me, I too would appreciate a central place to read about the next big things you are working on (apparently dev.clojure.org is in the process of becoming this place), but am excited about the direction Clojure is taking right now and would gladly donate if you decided to accept funding again in the future. The Confluence instance at: http://dev.clojure.org/ is definitely that place and is positively overflowing with design docs and plans. And: http://dev.clojure.org/jira/ lets you follow issues and changes being made. Clojure has never had a roadmap and won't have one any time soon. Things get done when they can get done, given need and people with the inclination, willingness, time and ability to do them (myself included). That has always been the case. It has never been the case that at the beginning of a particular year I could have predicted what would have been the big features developed that year. Some things get hot and get done, while others need more thinking time. I'm comfortable with that and happy with the results. People need to be cautious not to become too infatuated with planning and the ability to see the future than is supportable by an open source project of this size. Rich -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Funding 2011?
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Luke VanderHart luke.vanderh...@gmail.com wrote: For what it's worth, I am really glad of the position Rich is taking on a roadmap and Clojure's future development. I would much rather Clojure remained fresh, innovative and agile, and that it continues to offer unexpected, delightful new features and abilities. It can't really do that if Rich has to work through a years worth of mundane improvements he's already committed to before he can implement a new idea. About roadmaps: I think there are a core set of Clojure developers who meet regularly on IRC and discuss all kinds of interesting issues surrounding Clojure. They post ideas on the separate dev list, and on the various group development sites (assembla, github, confluence, etc. -- it has changed over time where the active discussions are happening). I believe that those in the core don't fully realize how little of that information trickles out to the masses. Improved information flow can generate excitement and enthusiasm in the community. For example, to those outside the core, sometimes it feels like development is proceeding at a slow pace. We mainly see the new, stable releases, which occur only occasionally (just 1.2 in the last year, right?). The inner group knows what's going into 1.3. They know how much effort has been spent testing out ideas, some of which were discarded, and some of which are highly likely to remain in the pipeline for a future stable release. The know what time has gone into creating build tools and other mundane things that are necessary as the project's infrastructure grows. For those outside the core, seeing a summary of the past year's accomplishments is tremendously exciting, creating a sense of Wow, Clojure's development is really progressing, with lots of great things happening. This is a fast-moving train that I want to be a part of. Similarly, when looking ahead, it is possible to provide a glimpse in the form of Here are the areas we're actively investigating (e.g., primitive math, pods, etc.). It's hard to know exactly which will bear fruit, but these are some of the things we're trying out, and some of the problems we'd like to solve. Furthermore, it's useful to know when past ideas have been officially discarded. For example, a couple years back there was a lot of discussion surrounding streams, as a way to handle stateful i/o interactions. Are those ideas officially dead, or are they just lower priority than a lot of things, or are we awaiting a fresh new insight? These sorts of communications to the community are certainly essential when trying to generate excitement about Clojure's forward momentum for funding purposes, but even if Rich has abandoned funding in the interest of not being tied to a specific set of commitments or expectations, I hope that the core developers will still realize the great community-building value of summarizing where we have been and where we hope to go. About funding: Last year, when Rich appealed for funding, he explained that without the funding, it did not make rational economic sense for him to devote his full time to Clojure development. He would be forced to take other contracting jobs, and less of his time would be spent on Clojure. So to me, the sad part of this announcement is that it carries with it the implication that Clojure development is going to slow down, because Rich will have to focus on things other than Clojure in order to make money. Is there any kind of middle ground possible here? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Funding 2011?
Why must many pay for some? I'm certain that of all the contributions you had, there are only an handful of people who don't understand what a donation is. So with that in mind what is the rational for this kind of action? I mean, you never said that if we donated you would implement our ideas right? So why do you feel this action is necessary? This only cuts you from a source of support, and people who feel that they should get a say in the direction clojure is taking, could perhaps be refunded. One possible solution would be to open a virtual gift shop where you would buy clojure mugs and t-shirts etc... they would be a bit pricier but the profit would serve to fund clojure, that way if I want to fund clojure development I know where to go and there is no room for complains, because you are getting something for your money. On Jan 4, 2:31 pm, Rich Hickey richhic...@gmail.com wrote: On Nov 28, 2010, at 9:07 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote: In Dec 2009, Rich asked the community to step up and support core development -- and the community came through. I'm interested in clojure, but not using it professionally yet. I was wondering if funding for 2011 has already been worked out, or if it is an open question? I was going to continue the funding effort, but have decided against it for the reasons given here: http://clojure.org/funding Many thanks to those who participated, Rich p.s. If you participated during the brief interval when funding was directed at Clojure/core, your contribution will be refunded. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Funding 2011?
Why not update the funding from simple donation to a purchase of clojure/core software like a refined version of the eclipse plugin or some other incentive based approach? I think I understand why rich might find 'donation' approach a bit uncomfortable. On Jan 4, 2:24 pm, Mark Engelberg mark.engelb...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Luke VanderHart luke.vanderh...@gmail.com wrote: For what it's worth, I am really glad of the position Rich is taking on a roadmap and Clojure's future development. I would much rather Clojure remained fresh, innovative and agile, and that it continues to offer unexpected, delightful new features and abilities. It can't really do that if Rich has to work through a years worth of mundane improvements he's already committed to before he can implement a new idea. About roadmaps: I think there are a core set of Clojure developers who meet regularly on IRC and discuss all kinds of interesting issues surrounding Clojure. They post ideas on the separate dev list, and on the various group development sites (assembla, github, confluence, etc. -- it has changed over time where the active discussions are happening). I believe that those in the core don't fully realize how little of that information trickles out to the masses. Improved information flow can generate excitement and enthusiasm in the community. For example, to those outside the core, sometimes it feels like development is proceeding at a slow pace. We mainly see the new, stable releases, which occur only occasionally (just 1.2 in the last year, right?). The inner group knows what's going into 1.3. They know how much effort has been spent testing out ideas, some of which were discarded, and some of which are highly likely to remain in the pipeline for a future stable release. The know what time has gone into creating build tools and other mundane things that are necessary as the project's infrastructure grows. For those outside the core, seeing a summary of the past year's accomplishments is tremendously exciting, creating a sense of Wow, Clojure's development is really progressing, with lots of great things happening. This is a fast-moving train that I want to be a part of. Similarly, when looking ahead, it is possible to provide a glimpse in the form of Here are the areas we're actively investigating (e.g., primitive math, pods, etc.). It's hard to know exactly which will bear fruit, but these are some of the things we're trying out, and some of the problems we'd like to solve. Furthermore, it's useful to know when past ideas have been officially discarded. For example, a couple years back there was a lot of discussion surrounding streams, as a way to handle stateful i/o interactions. Are those ideas officially dead, or are they just lower priority than a lot of things, or are we awaiting a fresh new insight? These sorts of communications to the community are certainly essential when trying to generate excitement about Clojure's forward momentum for funding purposes, but even if Rich has abandoned funding in the interest of not being tied to a specific set of commitments or expectations, I hope that the core developers will still realize the great community-building value of summarizing where we have been and where we hope to go. About funding: Last year, when Rich appealed for funding, he explained that without the funding, it did not make rational economic sense for him to devote his full time to Clojure development. He would be forced to take other contracting jobs, and less of his time would be spent on Clojure. So to me, the sad part of this announcement is that it carries with it the implication that Clojure development is going to slow down, because Rich will have to focus on things other than Clojure in order to make money. Is there any kind of middle ground possible here? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Funding 2011?
On Nov 28, 2010, at 9:07 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote: In Dec 2009, Rich asked the community to step up and support core development -- and the community came through. I'm interested in clojure, but not using it professionally yet. I was wondering if funding for 2011 has already been worked out, or if it is an open question? I'd be happy to contribute again, but I'd like some feedback on the state of play. To more success in 2011, Jeremy Thanks for your interest. Sorry for the delay in responding, we've been setting things up behind the scenes. The rationale for users of Clojure to pay for it still stands, but, as it is now a group effort, it is only fitting that the target of the funding be the Clojure/core team (which includes me). I've updated http://clojure.org/funding to reflect these changes. The paypal link goes to Clojure/core, and, now you'll get a Clojure 2011 sticker! Many thanks to all who've contributed in the past, and continue to do so in 2011. Rich -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Funding 2011?
In Dec 2009, Rich asked the community to step up and support core development -- and the community came through. I'm interested in clojure, but not using it professionally yet. I was wondering if funding for 2011 has already been worked out, or if it is an open question? I'd be happy to contribute again, but I'd like some feedback on the state of play. To more success in 2011, Jeremy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
