From: Crawford C. <cc...@c-...> - 2005-11-15 08:14:35
|
Martin@Cleaver.org wrote: >Let's make it up to the community where the money should be spent. > >We could create a web where work offers are put in and against which >pledges are lodged. Or a feature voting facility. The projects needing >multiple-pledges are the architectural restructing or community >projects. > > That would work if the community expressed an interest. Here's how I could see it working: 1. Someone makes an application for funds. The application is backed by a project proposal, and probably by support from the community (this is where your feature votes would count). 2. Every few months (say) a group of people *who are not eligible to apply for the money* decide where to allocate the kitty. Decision is by majority vote among the outstanding proposals. 3. If someone feels they have a strong case, they will go ahead and do the work/make the trip. So funds may be released retroactively, but in this case it is at the applicants' risk. Proactive work that is supported by the community should be easier to get funding for, to encourage people who take the initiative. 4. Corporations should able to buy a place on the kitty team by up-front contribution to the kitty, but a single corporation can never control more than 20% of the kitty team. 5. Volunteers serving on the kitty team should be rewarded in some way. 6. It should be possible for individuals/smaller companies to contribute to the pot, and be recognised for their support. So how do the kitty team decide who gets funded? Should they be steered by the TWiki Mission? Does the TWiki Mission accurately reflect the desires of the OSS community doing the work? If not, how does it need to change? >Many levels of sophistication possible but ideally once there is a >certain % of cash pledged it could be collected and held in trust. >Once the work to satisfaction the money is released. > > That's a lot of admin. Who will do it? >Might be best to partner with a site such as freelancer.com / hire a >programmer.com (or whatever they were called). They have the >infrastructure and it would be worth a modest margin to know it was >allocated appropriately. > > Possibly. My natural reaction is that this is only part of the story. We may want to fund specific people, or propose to hire a graphic artist, or fund a competition to invent a tag line. C. |