Cor Nouws wrote:
The idea of bounties sounds better to me than actually having developers
on payroll. For one thing it is far less complicated from a tax and
accounting standpoint. Also bounties would work better from the
standpoint of fixing individual bugs and adding individual
enhancements. For instance what if a time arrives when for a few weeks
at a time no one knows of a specific need?
Samuel M wrote (23-06-11 17:06)
Why should'nt TDF go ahead and employ one of the former OOo
developers or someone else from the community? I think there would be
much interest from users and companys to pay for fixing bugs /
implementing new features.
Employing people is not such an easy thing. For example because you
want to offer some sort of continuity.
Looking at the LibreOffice ecosystem, it is successful because more
and more companies give support. So the most natural to me, seems a
situation where funding supports them in supporting :-)
On the other hand, in the possible situation that there are so many
smaller donations, that employing (a) developer(s) might be an option,
but then in a way that there is no direct competition between TDF and
the sponsoring entities.
At that moment I think working with bounties could be a useful
construction for that, which maybe also helps even further growing the
community of non-bound developers.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy