Propose your solution
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
|
For bounties to work well for all parties involved the bounty must make a very clear description of what the deliverables will be. As it stands now, brainstorm does not do that.
I do like the idea of mass contribution to community goals through bounties, but it would need to be a bit more formal.
|
|
bgfeldm
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 13:14
|
|
|
|
For this to work you would need a money broker to take the money until the bounty has been satisfied or a time frame passes to give the money back. This will ensure the bounty is good.
|
|
nixeagle
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 20:27
|
|
|
I'm not so sure about this. Yes its useful, but I think this site was made just so that the community at large can be heard as to which issues are important to the most users.
As far as ideas being stuck on the front page, thats good, the issues I see on the front page are nothing to snigger at.
I see right now:
Fix Suspend and Hibernate - This has been an outstanding issue for so long, its good to have a place that the developers can really tell how much this bugs users.
Provide a simple graphical interface to manage _any_ type of network connection - Networking has always been a linux issue. As of gutsy they have improved the standards greatly, but more work does need to be done, to make it work with modems well and other devices.
There are a bunch more, but the vast majority of them are worthy issues, some of them I never knew existed! There is a bias towards the issues that cropped up first, but by the looks of it, the widely blogged/and publicized issues seem to be at the top of this list... so hopefully some of these are fixed going into the next release.
All in all, I will say that this system is awesome! It gives users who are afraid or don't know how to use bugzilla a place to request features, and comment without having to worry about the traditions of bugzilla/developer bug tracking systems.
|
|
|
|
I think that this is a great idea to get fixes pushed through.
|
|
kab
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 21:15
|
|
|
|
It's also possible that the users can bet an amount of money to ideas they love and if a developer want to develop it and need some money, users who have bet some are notified and can decide if the make a donation through pay pal or something. Technically this should be very easy to implement.
|
|
stix213
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 23:02
|
|
|
|
I think this is a very good idea, but won't work with the current "brainstorm" format. I think this could greatly accelerate Ubuntu development.
|
|
|
|
Good idea. I'd instantly pay gladly 1000 EUR for removal of Evolution from the default desktop. :-)
|
|
wolfier
wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 03:54
|
|
|
I'd pay 1001 EUR for them to keep it!
See the problem with bounties? The person who has more money is not necessary also the person who has a better idea.
Voted down.
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 12:12
|
|
|
|
Obviously they would need to have a high enough vote first, and be authorised by the ubuntu team.
|
|
maynoth
wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 16:14
|
|
|
|
allow users to see google ads in the idea and click to add funds
|
|
wolfier
wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 19:05
|
|
|
The problem is, the money attached may make it more viable to the ubuntu team - not saying that they're corrupt, but it's human nature. The bigger the lure the higher the incentive.
We should keep money out of this at all.
If you find Ubuntu good, donate. Otherwise, don't.
|
|
EJ
wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 23:33
|
|
|
I think this is a great idea. There are a lot of people who like to contribute but don't have the free time or knowledge. Developers needs to eat and life, donating money is very usefull. There are just not enough developers to implement all the good ideas.
This is my proposol: populair ideas will be checked by ubuntu/canonical. This means that they estimate the costs of realising the idea. The brainstorm idea will show a progress bar of the donations like wikipedia. When there is enough money the idea can be implemented. It's more fun to donate because you can see the direct results of your donation and you can donate on the things you think are important.
Quote:
Good idea. I'd instantly pay gladly 1000 EUR for removal of Evolution from the default desktop. :-)
I'd pay 1001 EUR for them to keep it!
See the problem with bounties? The person who has more money is not necessary also the person who has a better idea.
end quote
That's true, but ubuntu/canonical must determine if people can donate on it.
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 6 Mar 08 at 04:47
|
|
|
The patch would also need to be accepted into the main distribution
|
|
|
I think that the bounty would only be paid if the entry was accepted. So the developers will still have control over it, there'll just be more incentive to fix the patches. Because of this, I think it'll work just fine.
Heck, it could even bring in more professional devs!
|
|
korvins
wrote on the 23 Mar 08 at 22:47
|
|
|
Developers need to eat, and this could help more people to donate and improve Ubuntu faster.
Full time developers are necessary :)
|
saivann
(Brainstorm moderator)
wrote on the 3 Apr 08 at 20:11
|
|
|
This idea is incredible and can release the infinite power of opensource software. I vote +1 only under these conditions :
1. People can only donate to ideas / bugs that are approved by the authorized administrator of the projects.
2. Donations give no power of decision, decisions belong to the projects administrators (nothing changes).
3. All ideas refused/not implemented are refunded.
4. Donations go to the people(s) who implement the solutions.
5. Ideas/bugs need at least 2 administrators to review and accept the solutions before it is set to implemented and that the contributor receive the donations for is work.
|
|
|
Not a bad idea!
I picture like at 750 votes the team checks it out, decides viability, then allows people to donate toward the bounty. The first developer[s] who fixes it gets the money. It would of course be tangible things, like 'Make Ubuntu work with this one device' rather than concepts like 'Make suspend/hibernate work'. although it could be cchanged to accomodate those.
|
|
Manos
wrote on the 25 Apr 08 at 19:18
|
|
|
I completely agree with saivann.
The only problem is that it may take longer to implement then most ideas.
+1
|
|
|
|
(+1) i like! nice! agreed with saivann!
|
|
wladston
wrote on the 23 May 08 at 21:32
|
|
|
I was wishing somethign like this since a long time ...
please, make it happen, let me pay to have stuff that I like to work!!
|
|
Manos
wrote on the 24 May 08 at 23:00
|
|
|
We should also allow to attach threats.
"Do this by Monday or I'll send your Wife's index finger in the mail!"
I'm not sure how well the code will be :P
|
|
|
agree with saivann as well with one exception:
- sometimes the hold on ideas being accepted upstream is reviewers not spending the time to review and merge the code. some % (say 5-10%) of compensation could be afforded to them for this time and effort that isn't always smooth.
|
|
|
secondly Ubuntu could make a page that made it easy to give money to organizations like X.org or Gnome that are much larger than one person developing, but an easier donation center would maybe allow them to hire more full time developers rather than the part-time hackers that usually work on these projects.
This would work either through links to organization collection sites or by distributing the money through Ubuntu.
|
|
|
|
Russian Firefox community has already successfully done something like this. Mozilla Russia launched a program called "Money for bugs", and three Russia-specific (or multilanguage-specific) bugs have already been corrected as a result. The bounties given for these bugs were $500, $470 and $400. Two paid bugs are still open for sale, both at currently the price of $300.
|
|
Craig73
wrote on the 3 Oct 08 at 14:54
|
|
|
I think the ability to contribute money is an excellent idea... as other (duplicate) ideas suggested, this is a great way to bring momentum to issues that have no corporate momentum.
My concern, as stated by others, is how do you balance paying money to get a personal need met with undue influence of those with money (or in economies with stronger or more accessible dollars)?
Could we consider a maximum? For example, only allow people to contribute one dollar to an idea.
This would remove undue influence, and would required more people to contribute, but seems to better support "community decisions"
-----------------------------------------
Like Saivann above, I would think there are a number of needed restrictions/caveats/questions?
1. Does my contribution only pay for a developer? or how do we include a UI designer, architect, QA, reviewer in this process? [or is this a future enhancement to this?]
2. While I some how believe 'acceptance' into code base would somehow help ensure code quality, I do worry about the appearance of money creating a economy of crap code for a quick buck.
3. How do you assign a fair value to a project? IE - if 5000 users like an idea, contribute a dollar, there are $5000 in funds to spend...
- do you spend $500 for the 80% solution or $5000 for the 98% solution
- do we pay more for a good/expert developer or less for an adequate one? (the hourly rate might be a wash with the hours/skills balance)
- can we buy short term kludges until the long term infrastructure change is in place? (does some of the money go to that long term change?)
- what are the tax implications? Is this a donation or a payment?
- does this favour developers in economies with a lower dollar/lower cost of living? (or do I care, since we are all one happy family... that will exclude the expensive brother for the cheap one)
4) Unlike Saivann, I find it hard to believe that donations will not give power to a decision. I think the economic vs community contributions is a larger discussion that will swallow and destroy this idea quickly. We need to accept that there are multiple streams of contributions, and evolve the overall model separately.
|
|
Craig73
wrote on the 3 Oct 08 at 14:57
|
|
|
PS - I voted this up. While I think my suggestion is slightly different... I think the basic idea is sound [we just need to hash out the implementation]
|
|
jpka
wrote on the 28 Oct 08 at 07:05
|
|
|
|
In some big and 'wild' countries, such as Russian Federation, more than 90% people in big cities and more than 99% people overall, not have a credit card and not able to (electronically) transfer money outside the country easy. The ways to transfer is exist, but very time- and cost consuming. Thus, almost no way to donate. I want this, but I can't do this.
|
|
e
wrote on the 2 Oct 09 at 13:41
|
|
|
I've proposed solution #5. It proposes a more formal system (that requires an escrow service) and involves coordination with the project that would be changed by the dev work.
I hope that addresses some of the concerns about the wrong solution being proposed/developed.
|
Post your comment
|
