Geeklog Bounties: General discussion

Welcome to Geeklog Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 06:02 PM EDT

	Forum Index > General Discussions > Feedback	New Topic	Post Reply
Geeklog Bounties: General discussion

Dirk

01/05/07 02:25PM (Read 4812 times)

Admin

Status: offline

Registered: 01/12/02
Posts: 13027

Please use this thread to discuss the new Geeklog Bounties initiative.

To address the most common questions (this list will probably be updated in the course of the discussion):

This does not mean that from now on, features will only be implemented if there's a sponsor for them. This is meant as a way of reducing our backlog of open feature requests and give those a chance that probably won't get implemented otherwise.
At this time, we are not really looking for new ideas (see above). Once the initiative is well under way and we may even have found some additional sponsors, we're willing to take new feature requests into account. But as long as our resources are limited, please stick to the list of open feature requests.

Profile

Website

Quote

LWC

01/05/07 06:20PM

Full Member

Status: offline

Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 811

What about the suggested patches' list? It's a much smaller list and much easier to implement because people submit patches with semi or full solutions instead of just saying "please add x".

Profile

Website

Quote

rv8

01/07/07 02:07PM

Regular Poster

Status: offline

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 103

Could we have a way to let users vote with their wallets? I mean a way for users to pledge a contribution for a bounty againsta particular feature request.

Kevin Horton

Profile

Website

Quote

Dirk

01/07/07 02:18PM

Admin

Status: offline

Registered: 01/12/02
Posts: 13027

Quote by: rv8

Could we have a way to let users vote with their wallets? I mean a way for users to pledge a contribution for a bounty againsta particular feature request.

Sure - if anyone wants to sponsor a particular feature request (fully or in part), let us know. I tried to explain that on the bounties page - maybe it wasn't that clear.

bye, Dirk

Profile

Website

Quote

Dirk

01/07/07 02:20PM

Admin

Status: offline

Registered: 01/12/02
Posts: 13027

Quote by: LWC

What about the suggested patches' list?

Well, ideally patches are already implemented, so all we would need to do is integrate them. I'll have to look at the open ones again, but there's probably a reason why we haven't picked them up yet ...

bye, Dirk

Profile

Website

Quote

rv8

01/07/07 02:29PM

Regular Poster

Status: offline

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 103

Nope, you were clear enough. I just skimmed over that part. My fault. I've sent you a message with a pledge for my favourite missing feature.

Kevin Horton

Profile

Website

Quote

LWC

01/07/07 05:35PM

Full Member

Status: offline

Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 811

Well, ideally patches are already implemented.

But in reality the list gets bigger and bigger and many patches just lie there and I think it's a shame since they're so easier to add than general requests.

Profile

Website

Quote

jmucchiello

01/07/07 08:20PM

Full Member

Status: offline

Registered: 08/29/05
Posts: 985

Over time patches aren't easy to just put into cvs. API changes between versions can mess up patches greatly. The changes between 1.4.0 and 1.4.1 were such that I would have called 1.4.1 a 1.5.0 release. It would be nice if there was a requirement for the PLG_ and COM_ functions to be frozen between minor version changes. My patch for readonly/writeonly topics for 1.4.0 looks nothing like the patch for 1.4.1 because several important COM_ functions had added parameters and my patch also adds parameters to those functions. So in 1.4.1 I just created "extended" versions of the functions to get around the issue. But a real solution is needed since the interface for COM_topicList would have 5 parameters with my change and having defaults on a function with that many parameters can be meaningless. Might be worth changing the interface to take an array called $options at that point. But that's not my call.

Profile

Quote

LWC

01/23/07 08:58AM

Full Member

Status: offline

Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 811

I wanted to talk with Dirk about the money that changes hands. Since it (at least so far) was ignored in the story's comments, I thought I'd quote myself here:

If you want to increase the motivation for this, give us back an invoice so we could declare this as a business expense. All you have to do is open up a small business, which is usually free and just takes some paperwork. You can always pay $0 taxes for times when you have $0 earnings (although there's no reason for that thanks to the ongoing bounty sponsors).

Admittedly, you still won't be able to declare business expenses yourself (when you pay the "out source" programmers), because I doubt most programmers would agree to form a business themselves (although I wish they did). Still, even one proper direction (the "sponsors to you" direction) is better than nothing.

Besides, it would also make sure you stay out of trouble with your IRS now that you're going to get (or already do get) regular unofficial income.

You know what? Maybe you can form a nonprofit organization instead of a small business, and then you'd get all of the benefits those things get.

Well, just wanted to give you some food for thought.

Profile

Website

Quote

Dirk

01/23/07 02:58PM

Admin

Status: offline

Registered: 01/12/02
Posts: 13027

Quote by: LWC

If you want to increase the motivation for this, give us back an invoice so we could declare this as a business expense.

I can provide you with an invoice which, according to German law, I can write without running a business, as long as I don't exceed a certain amount of money per year. So that's not a problem on my end - not sure if that piece of paper (or PDF) would be accepted in other countries, though.

bye, Dirk

Profile

Website

Quote

LWC

01/24/07 05:40AM

Full Member

Status: offline

Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 811

This is a tricky one as here you're supposed to have a business and I'm not sure who to ask (the IRS' phone support can barely help themselves). Would you at least tell me the the exact law and clause that state this?

BTW, how much money per year are we talking about?

And is this how bounties shall work in general? Project requesters would always pay you and you'd always pay the programmers?

Profile

Website

Quote

Dirk

01/24/07 03:24PM

Admin

Status: offline

Registered: 01/12/02
Posts: 13027

Quote by: LWC

BTW, how much money per year are we talking about?

And is this how bounties shall work in general? Project requesters would always pay you and you'd always pay the programmers?

Check our bounties page - there are two sorts of sponsorship: Ongoing and per task.

Ongoing (like AOE Media did) means that someone gives us the money and we decide which task to sponsor with it. Per task (as Kevin Horton did) is a one-time dontation towards a specific feature.

I guess the latter could also be paid directly from the sponsor to the person(s) implementing it. But we'd like to protect us and the people working on a task from "disappearing acts". It would make us look bad and the person working on the task angry. That way, we also have more control over if and how we accept the code - given that we will have to maintain it from that point on, I think that's only fair.

bye, Dirk

Profile

Website

Quote

LWC

01/24/07 07:38PM

Full Member

Status: offline

Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 811

Yes, I meant the per task, of course. How will you give/take money? PayPal?

Would you at least tell me the the exact law and clause that state this?

BTW, how much money per year are we talking about?