Written by BlackLukes the 30 Mar 08 at 12:00.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #6081 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #6081 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by Auzy the 29 Feb 08 at 11:41.

Lets make it possible for people to donate $5 or so to their own ideas. Sure nobody may implement it, or the patch may not be accepted but it opens things up a lot more. Nobody loses either.

Lets make it possible for people to donate $5 or so to their own ideas. Sure nobody may implement it, or the patch may not be accepted but it opens things up a lot more. Nobody loses either.

Written by doctormo the 16 Jan 09 at 15:21.

I propose that developers use their good standing to set an amount of money they would be prepared to accept in order to complete a solution. Then users can pool together their money in order to meet that and vote on which developer (by cost or by name) should do the work.

This has a clear idea that in order to be the accepted developer, you must be able to prove your reputation and be able to clearly document what you plan on doing.

No money would be transfered unless the amount of people who have put their money in _and_ voted for one of the developers, is more than what the developer needs to complete the job.

I propose that developers use their good standing to set an amount of money they would be prepared to accept in order to complete a solution. Then users can pool together their money in order to meet that and vote on which developer (by cost or by name) should do the work. This has a clear idea that in order to be the accepted developer, you must be able to prove your reputation and be able to clearly document what you plan on doing. No money would be transfered unless the amount of people who have put their money in _and_ voted for one of the developers, is more than what the developer needs to complete the job.

Written by luk156 the 14 Mar 09 at 08:54.

Give us the ability to offer money for a idea like on cofundos.org.

Give us the ability to offer money for a idea like on cofundos.org.

Written by cheesehead the 14 Mar 09 at 18:52.

Open (or find) a project on cofundos, and simply post a link to it in your Brainstorm solution, Brainstorm comment, blog, forum post, Launchpad page, etc.

Open (or find) a project on cofundos, and simply post a link to it in your Brainstorm solution, Brainstorm comment, blog, forum post, Launchpad page, etc.

Written by e the 2 Oct 09 at 13:39.

0. Someone proposes an idea.
1. Brainstorm users promise to donate to see an idea solved.
2. Developers suggest a solution and a minimum cost that they would perform the development for. The solution would include clear exit criteria, stating the deliverables; as well as a finishing date that the solution must be provided by.
3. Brainstorm users pick the solution they will pay for.
4. One or more judges are chosen who will sign off when the deliverables are completed. (These could be Canonical employees or Brainstorm users)
5. The developers and judges get in touch with the owners of the project in question, to coordinate the proposed solution (and increase the likelihood that it will be accepted into the project).
6. Brainstorm users donate money that is held in escrow until the judges have signed off or the finishing date has passed.
7. Developers implement solution showing their final result to the judge(s).
8. Developers iterate changes until judges are satisfied.
9. Money is released to developers.

If the finishing date elapses before the software is delivered, then the donations are released back to the Brainstorm users.

I know the escrow service sounds scary (because it's extra infrastructure), but I think it's necessary. Developers need know that they will be paid when the work is done.

0. Someone proposes an idea. 1. Brainstorm users promise to donate to see an idea solved. 2. Developers suggest a solution and a minimum cost that they would perform the development for. The solution would include clear exit criteria, stating the deliverables; as well as a finishing date that the solution must be provided by. 3. Brainstorm users pick the solution they will pay for. 4. One or more judges are chosen who will sign off when the deliverables are completed. (These could be Canonical employees or Brainstorm users) 5. The developers and judges get in touch with the owners of the project in question, to coordinate the proposed solution (and increase the likelihood that it will be accepted into the project). 6. Brainstorm users donate money that is held in escrow until the judges have signed off or the finishing date has passed. 7. Developers implement solution showing their final result to the judge(s). 8. Developers iterate changes until judges are satisfied. 9. Money is released to developers. If the finishing date elapses before the software is delivered, then the donations are released back to the Brainstorm users. I know the escrow service sounds scary (because it's extra infrastructure), but I think it's necessary. Developers need know that they will be paid when the work is done.

Written by stevec the 4 Mar 08 at 00:13.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #2936 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #2936 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by Auzy the 14 Jul 08 at 12:26.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #11114 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #11114 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by andrewpmk the 1 Mar 08 at 02:25.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #2010 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #2010 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by Auzy the 30 Mar 08 at 01:06.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #6047 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #6047 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by forteller the 6 Mar 08 at 18:26.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #3586 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #3586 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by Auzy the 22 Mar 08 at 07:49.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #5380 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #5380 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by kenneth.venken the 11 Mar 08 at 23:52.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #4306 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #4306 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by treynolen the 7 Mar 08 at 20:23.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #3795 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #3795 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by Tuxoid the 16 Nov 09 at 09:39.

I think if there is a legitimate enough reason, any idea status should be debatable. However, any ideas of which brainstorm users want re-approved, must first need more approvals from more moderators than new ideas; secondly, the disapproved ideas would be given lower priority by moderators than new ideas awaiting approval; thirdly, ideas would only be allowed one request for re-approval. If such a re-approval is refused, a second re-approval request is not allowed.

I think if there is a legitimate enough reason, any idea status should be debatable. However, any ideas of which brainstorm users want re-approved, must first need more approvals from more moderators than new ideas; secondly, the disapproved ideas would be given lower priority by moderators than new ideas awaiting approval; thirdly, ideas would only be allowed one request for re-approval. If such a re-approval is refused, a second re-approval request is not allowed.