Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 114, Issue 130

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:36 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> The amazing thing is rather that in the last three months, my finances
>> have not taken a further dive and this looks like it _could_ end up
>> sustainable.
>
> That's good news!  I was afraid that this month would be a problem.
>
>> I am not saying that I consider this unethical: that would be a stretch.
>> The source is available under the GPL.  And the developer has a target
>> of US$54k per year, $4500 per month, and comes close.  That's not really
>> excessive, and Ardour is a large application, and Paul Davis _does_ the
>> bulk of the design.  And his way of addressing contributors has a chance
>> to address a lot of otherwise passive users for small contributions.
>>
>> Which is where I would like to head eventually.  Just not in that
>> manner.
>
> When the money donated to you will come close to exceeding your needs,
> we could indeed think about some kind of organised funding.
> Two simple ideas:
> - public sponsorship: everyone that donates more than $x is listed on
> the website

I doubt that most people would enjoy this sort of competitive angle.  I
don't want to get to "before I get shown for finishing 10th for a
substantial contribution, I'd rather not contribute at all".  In my
reports, I list all the amounts without attribution so far, so
contributors and would-be contributors can see where in the scheme of
things they figure in, if that is what interests them.  I think that
this amount of transparency and personal feedback is appropriate, even
though it might (and probably already has) make small contributors shrug
and say "why bother" when they feel that it "placed them low" and makes
them feel, for whatever reason, worse than not being in the list at all.
I don't think I want to turn this into a competition, and part of the
reason is that there are a _lot_ who contribute according to their
personal abilities, with different countries of origin, different
income, and different personal situation.

> - paid support: in addition to already great support on -user, we
> could provide guaranteed support (e.g. within 2-3 days of question)
> for $x/month - if we find people interested in providing such support,
> of course.

No.  It turns out that there is already quite a correlation between
helpful supporters on the user list and financial contributions to my
work.  If you think about it, both require feeling passionate about
LilyPond.  If we try turning contributors into a money printing machine,
more likely than not we will kill _both_ the enthusiasm as _well_ as the
money.  I repeat: LilyPond is _far_ too large a project to be run as a
one-man show.  For better or worse, I don't see any way around running
LilyPond fundamentally as a project of unpaid volunteers, or not at all.
Every dollar earned by someone has to be paid by someone, and since
everything is voluntary, payment will be related to enthusiasm, and
enthusiasm is related to other contributions, that are in their sum
quite more important than the monetary contributions, as well.

The distribution of contributions is not even, or fair, or whatever.
But it can't be while it is voluntary and self-determined, and that is
the _essence_ of this project.  And I would rather quit LilyPond than
trying to seriously mess with that.

-- 
David Kastrup