I vote C.

I share Ted's concerns about jumping in with such a "grand" first attempt. However, I'm sure some of that is based on different reasoning. I guess for me, I have to say that I don't see what the issue is with a smaller "trial run". Why not try 1 person for 1 month of work for this first attempt? Per CR earlier in the discussion "anyone feeling sour about it can apply for the next round". If we learn the lesson that the original proposal was correctly scoped, we're not out anything other than the release getting slightly delayed. If a 1 person trial shows the right amount of promise, there's nothing stopping putting forward a second proposal for the other 2 for a month of work each immediately after (I'm saying for the same release). I'd be thrilled if we could tighten up our release windows as well as release quality with paid work.

1) I'd be happy to see this re-proposed/updated with a smaller budget/scope for an initial attempt at such an effort. Something like what I mentioned above. Seriously, if 1 person for 1 month works great, I'd be all about immediately going for the other 2 for another month.

2) If you want to sway me to jump in at the currently proposed numbers (devs and budget), my suggestion would be to amend the proposal so that they will each be livestreaming the entirety of said contract work and all ~160 hours each will be publicly archived or something of that nature that helps make it so there is more accountability/tangibility to the value of the effort.


On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 10:46 AM Marc Jeanmougin <marc@jeanmougin.fr> wrote:

Dear PLC,


Jonathan Neuhauser (@joneuhauser at Gitlab and chat.inkscape.org) is
submitting a proposal to hire three core developers for the equivalent
of a month of work each to fix bugs and regressions during the remaining
time until the 1.3 release. This proposal has been cleared by the SFC
(Pono and Karen) and received a favorable reception during the developer
meetings. The proposal is designed such that no (micro)management /
mentoring is needed (thus only trusted core developers were considered).
As the AI project explicitly targets outside contractors, this proposal
attempts to use our funds internally.

The complete proposal is appended; it contains all the details on the
selection process, persons, objectives as well as a personal remark by
Jonathan on the impact on the project's general atmosphere.


Voting is needed on the following items:

- hiring Rafal Siejakowski, Martin Owens and Tavmjong Bah as contractors
during the bugfixing season in order to fix serious bugs before 1.3 is

- allocating a total of USD 34,200 as compensation for the three

Details on the process are lined out in the attached document.


a. Accept the above items.
b. No, cease effort for Bugfix Accelerator 2023
c. Other: ______

Best regards,
Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org
To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org