On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 09:23:01AM -0500, Olemis Lang wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Noah Kantrowitz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Jeff Hammel wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 12:18:30PM -0700, rupert.thurner wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mar 29, 6:24 pm, Jeff Hammel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> The idea occured to me to setup a trac with bounties for plugin
> >>>> and other development work similar to RequestAHacks on trac-hacks
> >>>> but for paid work.  While I'd love to do this...probably not right
> >>>> now as I don't have much free development time (although I could
> >>>> be persuaded).
> >>>>
> >>
> >> I'd love to hear what thoughts others have had on this idea.
> >
> > My general thoughts:
> > 1. Bounty-based only, no bidding.
> 
> +1 for bidding IMO

-1; I would be uninterested in such a site, for two reasons:

 1. it would be a hassle to me so I wouldn't do it

 2. it would encourage developers to try to undercut each other, which IMHO 
would ensure a shoddy product
 
> > 2. Must state desired license up-front. FOSS is preferred, but not
> > required.
> 
> +1 ... even if I think that should remain being FOSS ... a broader
> audience will be captured otherwise ... ;)
> 
> > 3. Support is separate, ticket bounties are for the request only.
> 
> -1 ... all reqs at once ... if both parties agree, deal is closed ...

I think contracts could (maybe even should) include some level of support.  For 
instance, if I write a plugin that hides security tickets (example), and the 
client states that they are satisfied, but deploying in the wild reveals a 
critical bug like search being broken, then this may demand some support.

> > 4. Neither the Trac nor Trac-Hacks team will involve themselves in
> > disputes.
> 
> ok ... but ...
> 
> > Any deal is made between the two parties only.
> >
> 
> -100 ^ 2 ... this doesn't work ... it there *MUST* be very clear rules
> and arbitration process ... otherwise it's barely useful ... safety is
> a *MUST*, at least IMO ...

I whole-heartedly disagree. While the site can/should setup rules, it is not up 
to the site to enforce the rules.  This would involve a legal team, which I for 
one would not be interested in paying for.

Jeff

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac 
Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/trac-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to