Talk:Sponsorship rules
"That it be desirable that the developer paid is an active and recognised one"
I'm not sure why this should be the case - often a developer cannot fully appreciate the task to be completed and may need to involve a Business Analyst or team. Therefore, the distinction of developer may not be truly representative. I suggest perhaps the recommendation would be to use a recognised member of the community. Contributions and reputations speak for themselves. --Juddm 18:40, 5 February 2008 (EST)
- Thanks Mike Judd for your comment above (u should sign it to save me checking the history log :-) ). Well, in response, i m recommending such rules (my suggestion for peer review and acceptance, not hard rules) so as to protect both and other parties. We regard contributors as priceless, and there are those who are really active, and thus shuld be counted in. For example we know the active ones at the moment such as Teo, Armen, Victor, Colin, etc. Now this is only regarding the developer. You can introduce more ctegory of personnel such as Business Analyst, Subject Matter Experts again we would prefer active and recognised ones such as Colin, Adaxa and yourself included. It is a relative rule. All this still doesnt exclusivates from others as we merely wish this rule to be 'desirable' and not mandatory. - Red1 17:40, 5 February 2008 (EST)
- I may be bias but i m always for 'making ppl pay honestly' and 'making ppl contribute visibly' so thru this those newbies or hopefuls will make an effort to start writing and be active rather than just lurk, read and take away. I m just an evangelist here, and i cannot scream at them, just advice gently in the best of words. :)) - Red1 17:45, 5 February 2008 (EST)
I think you agree that contributions come in many ways. I think we have in the past become too focussed on appointing developers as demi-gods at the deference to other contributions. I have stated in the past that I am not a developer and this means to me that my primary skill in not writing code (programmer) but as understanding the business issue and defining the solution (a hybrid between a business analyst and a system architect). As a result of such classifications, I felt encouraged not to contribute and I feel that the project has moved as quickly as a result. I am compelled by the weight of useful potential code contributions we now maintain outside of the core because I see no route in which to submit these. Yet I am encouraged that the work we have been doing is the type of work other people also need. Without revisiting the past, I feel that the current system has served to reduce the velocity of development and I ask myself if as a user I feel that this has been directly reflected in improved stability. I'm not sure the equation balances. On another note, there are currently two proposals for sponsored development that sprung up in response to my recent post regarding cash payments/receipts - neither of which fully address the issue I am trying to solve. I take heed of the requirements raised in these project definitions, but I will likely develop the modifications anyway and then stumble down the road to peer review again and see where it takes me. I wonder if their are rules about who's sponsored development gets the funds against the proposals - is it the person who creates the functionality first - or the person who's code is committed to the trunk first? Food for thought. --Juddm 18:40, 5 February 2008 (EST)
- Mike, I have to correct those assumptions. We do regard subject matter specialists as not only in the same category but higher based on their merit. I have made such a welcoming statement when opening the SourceForge project (see the Welcome thread in the Developer Forum) and also our Wiki here (see the Community Portal) and many other places there are no demi-god (unless you are talking about me which by all accounts am not a technical expert, but an earnest editor, somewhat like Jimmy Wales). The PMC are elected by peers including SMEs, non-technical ppl and even plain lurkers. The route to trunk just like in Wikipedia has to follow peer review. Period. If you have good codes, show it in proper form. If you prefer not to show anything beyond some wiki flagpoles, or fear that your ideas are stolen, then this may not be the right place for you. Here, we just keep planting the ideas, nurture it, exchange appraisals, accept reviews that may results in removal of codes, and support each other in the best of forms without suspicion (unless evidence is brought forth).
- Now, i like to address you as an expert in your own right. We have from day one respected you as such. Your wiki posts are important and highly respected based on your qualifications behind it. It is just that you mix with other sourcecode proposals that is seemingly vapourware and IMHO unnecessary as it will dilute your high standing. Those were not visible. There is no way we can assail your earlier JazzERP, MySQL port and even give it a decent applause. I try to publish your wares but there is simply nothing for me to do so. You even gave me some email some time ago asking for a skype session to discuss your ERP on demand contribution, but i waited and waited by the phone, and even drop you reminders, but there was no response. So i guess either you regard me as not important to spend more time with to relay your goods or you find yachting more important passtime. For me, this is my job, hobby, passtime, and sleep. Yet i take the bazaar spirit earnestly and professionally. I will not tolerate this bazaar under my watch to conduct any conflicting commercial movement in the trunk. The best way to do that is to leave demigods out of the picture. Thus even though i supported heavily (and succesfully lobbied Carlos Ruiz) to let Posterita use its namesake to permanently brand the Web POS and Ajax UI, the community thinks otherwise and so we go back to Posterita to reconsider this adverse view from the bazaar.
- The final solution to all this, is always to come clean and open in the bazaar. NDA does not apply here. It applys there in Microsoft country, which is now desperately trying to stop the slide of Yahoo! and faces its own death by Google, of which in my deepest belief will also die. Only barefoot mob anarchy will survive. Or the community that is closest to it.
- - Red1 21:24, 5 February 2008 (EST)
