Re: Bounties

[David Kastrup]

Marc Hohl <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 25.01.2012 02:06, schrieb Tim McNamara:
>> As a user, I would tend to prefer to just kick money into a general
> fund and let someone figure out how it gets utilized for exactly the
> reason that was mentioned: I might want feature X, but groundwork U V
> and W- about which I know nothing- would have to precede the addition
> of feature X.  Bounties could end up complicating the logical
> development of Lilypond if they end up causing piecemeal development.
> +1
>
> I think that the bounty model for special features won't work
> (yet). The bounites drop in from time to
> time, and it is not clearly visible whether the offer is still valid.
> The implementation of tablature bends had a bounty of about 200$ or
> even more, but is still is not done.
>
> I don't know about legal and organizational issues, but what about a
> optional lilypond usage fee?

"fee" has a bad ring to it.  We are talking about software that is free
to use and redistribute, and this is _definitely_ something that we want
to stay.  It is more like a social contract.  Do your part in keeping
the things you profit from sustainable.

> I am willing to pay about 50$ per year for using lilypond and
> supporting the development team.

One problem is attaching a meaning to "supporting the development
team".  What uses are there for money?

For me, it is eat, drink, pay rent and social security.  That does not
sound very LilyPond specific.  It becomes LilyPond specific because I
currently choose to spend my time on LilyPond.  But I am having problems
saying "make a LilyPond fund, and I take most of it" when I am not
really in an official position in relation with the project.  And I have
serious doubts that my personality traits would make it a good idea for
LilyPond to put me in an official position in relation with the project.
It might not improve the developer and user base.

Other uses for supporting LilyPond as a project with money is sponsoring
conference talkers with conference fees, accommodation, travel.  As last
active maintainer from AUCTeX, I know that one can easily spend several
hundreds of Euros just to reach out to those people who actually profit
from you.  That's not really a good incentive for all the work in
relation with it, so cushioning this makes sense.

> And I think there are some more users out therewho would join ...

One thing that is clear is that if there are LilyPond specific funds,
there should be a procedure for _applying_ for them because if we pay
everyone's contribution what it is worth without asking, there will not
be left much left to go around for a long while since the LilyPond user
base is not yet all that large.  If you look at a project like Ardour,
it manages to pay the project leader with contributions.  That's
encouraging.  But it _is_ a large project, and it is very much one
person who lives fulltime for it, and he is in a quite special
situation, and the project leader.  Not just in technical matters, but
overall.

The German TeX user group Dante has a secretary on its payroll and
supports for a number of self-driven developments (meaning that people
_want_ to do them and apply for funding), but not for fulltime
developers.  They did that once, and the return of investment was really
awful, and not because of any bad intentions of anybody involved.

The lesson they took from that is to fund only specific developments
already in experienced hands.

So it is not really all that easy to make a plan for a reliable
long-time money sink that is going to produce good value for LilyPond.

I was approached yesterday from somebody willing to make a private
donation (I have no idea about the sum).  I have no qualms about taking
that: it feels more like a recompensation for things I already did so if
I were to drop dead tomorrow, I would not have a bad conscience about
it.

And if more people did that, it would definitely help me continue with
my work on LilyPond, and I don't expect it to match my costs of living
while developing anytime soon.  But calling that a general LilyPond fund
would be incorrect: I work on specific stuff at a time and not on
everything, others contribute a lot as well, and if somebody called and
said "I am going to put €20000 in your fund", I would not be in the
position to guarantee that €20000 of development would come from it
before I became unproductive.

So while I certainly can say that at the current point of time you could
do worse for LilyPond than sending me in person regular installments of
money without much of a special earmarking, I can't vouch that this will
stay so.

Of course, another good way is to send earmarked money for which you
expect specific tasks to be done in a reasonable amount of time.

-- 
David Kastrup