On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 03:30:08AM -0500, Martin Owens wrote:
Thanks Bryce,
This is an excellent policy document and it's got me quite excited :-)
One thing to note about the acceptance criteria, we'll likely be asking for a more rigorous documentation, test suite writing and other meta tasks as part of a 'job'; we should make sure that is clear up front so the time-costs of those jobs can be factored in.
Open Questions:
Two open questions sections?
Bad editing! Consider only the first section. The second section were all items I believe I incorporated. Sorry for the mess.
- How to do conflict resolution if there are problems or disagreements?
The board is the ultimate arbiter, but a first stage might be a meeting of the fund-raiser, the job specifier and the developer with maybe one other neutral developer. IRC or mailing list.
Thanks, I'll use that. How's this sound:
7. Conflict Resolution ======================= If there are any problems or disagreements once a project has been assigned to a Developer, a Meeting can be called by any stakeholder (Project Proposer, Developer, Fundraisers, Reviewer, or Inkscape Board Member). For proper quorum, the Meeting must be attended by the Developer, the Project Proposer, the Reviewer, at least one Fundraiser, and one Neutral Developer (whom can be anyone in the Inkscape AUTHORS file selected by the Developer). Any unanimous decision reached in this Meeting is binding on all parties.
Any conflict that can't be resolved via a Meeting may then be escalated to the Inkscape Board of Directors, who will be the ultimate arbiter.
- What happens if one person signs up for the job, and someone else independently does the work?
If no one gets the money, then the doer has effectively removed an opportunity from the signer. If the money goes to the doer, then the signer had no real reason to sign up at all and not only looses the opportunity but is probably a bit sore about it too. If the money goes to the signer, then she gets to walk away without doing any work.
Subject to the board or fund-raiser being involved. I'd say put 70% to the signer (they did everything right in process) and 30% to the general fund. The signer still get the majority of what they had planned, but not everything either. Nothing for the doer though, that would be wrong every way I look at it.
Interesting, and not a bad approach. What do others think?
I've tentatively added the following to section 4 (Completion Criteria):
"If someone other than the assigned Developer performs the work, to the satisfaction of the Reviewer, then the signed Developer will receive 70% of the funds. The remaining 30% are returned to the Inkscape general fund."
Open Questions:
- Should that person get some form of remuneration too?
Yes, but, there will be a pressure to pass jobs to claim such a reward. Maybe pay them whether they pass or fail the review and focus on the quality of the work.
For now, as per other feedback, I've opted to omit remuneration for the fundraiser and reviewer. If we find someday that these roles are insufficiently motivated and bottleneck progress, we can re-evaluate.
Fundraising Ideas
Forget all the traditional OSS project junk like cafepress, etc.
Honestly I think this section was intended to be just my own personal notes and ideas, but if anything was inspirational or useful, great. So it's my mistake this was included in the mailing; actually I think brainstorming for fundraising should probably be kept separate.
How about... things that inkscape can make or related to glory:
- Warm fuzzy feeling that the next version of inkscape will arrive.
(tip amount)
- Sponsored name in a commit (low amount)
- Roll call on the website for this version (med amount)
- Reasonable sized logo in the inkscape > About > Sponsors page (large
amount)
Get to pick the nickname for the next release (large amount)
Actual posters designed by artists who use inkscape and want to give
back, signed by the rock-star developers ;-)
- Inkscape branded 3D printed wacom tablet pens (impossible?)
Very interesting ideas! But I do think we should probably keep these separate from this proposal regarding the underlying mechanics.
Bryce