Actually this may show part of the culture shift going on with the project and especially the devtome part of it. You think people doing work on other things should put up bounties. However most of the stuff being done is open source, with the people doing it giving away their time and expertise. Now someone feels that was not enough, they should have to pay others to help them. That is not how open source is supposed to work.
I saw luckybit always saying how you can not blame the writers in earlier discussions. I also saw someone go so far as to post their reply to an active discussion as a devtome article so they could get paid while participating in the discussion!! This was when I had to take a break from things, as seeing things like that was just too frustrating. In an OS project all members are supposed to help move towards the goals. The concept of blaming or not blaming or not being able to blame a party would not even enter the discussion. It is not meant to be, you do the task defined and only that and don't think about anything else. I really think the culture is shifting and am not sure what it will become.
There is another interesting thing with the forum bounty. While it can be done, running a mail server can be a real pain. You have people consonantly probing it that want to use it as a relay. You have people that want to know why mail from misconfigured servers does not get to them, or to the person behind the bad server. You have ongoing server and support costs. I would have done the bounty if the issue of where and how to host it was also solved or supported in some way.
I agree. I said a while back that the devtome payment system may prove counter productive as it stands - because without capping per user share as % of total growing popularity would create a market skewed towards transient sellers, rather than buyers or holders or those interested in funding continuation of the idea and others from their own payment. Obviously all the basics of establishing decent and appealing venues for Devcoin itself need to be completed (maybe funded by those who'd like to see them happen...?) but I think it’s worth going back to square one and asking what the basics of the concept are, because like you I don't really get the 'culture shift'.I saw luckybit always saying how you can not blame the writers in earlier discussions. I also saw someone go so far as to post their reply to an active discussion as a devtome article so they could get paid while participating in the discussion!! This was when I had to take a break from things, as seeing things like that was just too frustrating. In an OS project all members are supposed to help move towards the goals. The concept of blaming or not blaming or not being able to blame a party would not even enter the discussion. It is not meant to be, you do the task defined and only that and don't think about anything else. I really think the culture is shifting and am not sure what it will become.
Quote
@twobits -- this is an issue I have as well... bounties are based on the "first," rather than the best. I think bounties should work like anything else; you are paying for quality. Anyone can toss up a crappy forum that meets the requirements needed for the forum bounty. It takes more skill to get one together that is set up properly, works like everyone wants and is seen as being usable by everyone.
There is another interesting thing with the forum bounty. While it can be done, running a mail server can be a real pain. You have people consonantly probing it that want to use it as a relay. You have people that want to know why mail from misconfigured servers does not get to them, or to the person behind the bad server. You have ongoing server and support costs. I would have done the bounty if the issue of where and how to host it was also solved or supported in some way.
If a bounty or share is paid for a project or effort, but the dvc bid interest is insufficient to reward them at such a value, that implies the financed project (or collective efforts) isn’t monetised or valued enough to warrant the payment at that level. Simple as that. So any constructive assessment of long-term value needs to start from the question of what are people willing to pay for directly, or what can be monetised to create a payment structure indirectly. That then raises the open-source issue, so perhaps the bigger question is an honest appraisal of which open-source efforts are nice ideas vs which ones are nice ideas that people will actually pay to see or use or advance, and how to reconcile the two.
For example, markm's point about pathes for merged mined coin clients - that could be a straightforward collaboration with other merged mined coin owners or agreement to use devcoin as a funding or facilitation mechanism to get it done. But to date it hasn't happened. Is that because few knew about the requirement, because there's no real interest, because it's difficult and time consuming and therefore expensive, because all coins see collaboration as self-undermining etc etc? I think answering that question mattters.
.
i agree, this is pityful. 