Krzysztof Kowalczyk wrote:
Whatever your opinion is on why they failed, the only
objective
evidence we have is that they failed.
I think it makes a lot of sense to examine why other projects failed.
Take LiveJournal, for example -- the Bazaar system that I based my idea
upon. Under your definition you're going to tell me that it "failed"
simply because the Bazaar is no longer used. However, I was there when
it happened, and I participated in it. I can tell you from first-hand
experience that it was an incredible success. Developer motivation
increased significantly, and the bounties that were paid out were for
much-needed work on the software.
The real reason why it was shut down (heck, it wasn't even explicitly
shut down, it was just neglected) was not that it was unsuccessful, but
just that the alternative they went for in parallel -- namely, hiring
employees for software development -- was just as successful, but much
less of a hassle.
I don't know much about finance, so I can't say how feasible it is for
the Wikimedia Foundation to hire software engineers, but intuitively one
would think that Wikimedia would benefit from such a Bazaar-like system
for as long as there is a significant risk that donations suddenly drop
and would no longer suffice to pay an employee. In my mind, the Bazaar
system has an advantage for both sides: Developers can still be
volunteers (i.e. opt out of any commitment any time they want), and
Wikimedia needn't be afraid of financial problems arising from it (since
never more than a given percentage of a month's donations are spent on
these bounties).
Timwi