Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com> writes:
> If that demand generates premium fees for the work, well, you can
> always use that to support the community.
>
> I think it would be ostrich-like to pretend that svn isn't already, in
> some respects, a commercial project. A community of volunteers
> shouldn't be corrupted or shut-out by money -- but they shouldn't be
> immune to it, either.
There's no problem with people being paid privately for their work on
Subversion. What Greg is objecting to, I think, is the idea that A's
monetary valuation of a feature F should influence the other
developers in prioritizing F.
And he's right. What A is willing to pay may have more to do with how
much A has to spend, and with A's particular applications, than with
feature F's importance in the grand scheme of things.
If A wants to pay a developer to champion F -- that is, to provide
patches and persuade the other developers that they should be checked
in -- that's fine. But the amount of money A is paying is not a valid
basis for such persuasion, and therefore shouldn't be brought up.
I'm bothering to say this because I think explains how we CollabNet
developers see our role. We're lucky to be paid to work on
Subversion, but the fact that we're paid shouldn't (and, I'm happy to
say, doesn't) give us one iota more influence on this list than we
would otherwise have, except in the indirect sense of allowing us to
spend more time on Subversion.
Tom, if you or anyone else can get paid to work on Subversion, that's
good news. But it won't affect how the group prioritizes features,
now or in the future.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 14 06:37:07 2002