On 26 Jul 2004 19:20:00 +0200, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> wrote:
Your problem is that you seem to be unable to
differentiate between
different kinds of systems and different types of success and failure.
Now you're making me more stupid that I really am. I think I've made
it clear that every project (CoSource, Gnome, Free Software Bazar) we
discussed was slightly different.
Makes little difference: they all failed in the end.
Most importantly, you cannot equate a competitive
bounty system, or a
business-oriented market like SourceExchange, with a call for tenders
that allows for different types of contractual agreements between the
Foundation and its existing team of developers, with a technically
competent steering committee that prepares the CfT, and with an
application period within which volunteers can step forward. These are
totally different things and acknowledging that difference would be a
great step forward.
I do acknowledge that. You brought those examples, not me. I just
showed that they all failed.
If you think those examples are not relevent to the discussion, why do
you bring them up?
Looking at history is a good idea only if you're
actually willing to make
an effort to understand it, instead of just using it to justify your
preconceived notions about reality.
Ad hominem attack.
GNOME bounty
resulted in fixing 11 bugs
(
http://www.gnome.org/bounties/Winners.html).
Um, no, these weren't bugs but features, some of them quite significant.
That's for a system that has around 700 new
bugs opened weekly and as
much bugs fixed
Again, you do not seem to understand the difference between bugs and
features. The bounties were largely on significant features or changed
application behavior. To compare something like Gaim/evolution identity
integration with something like "combobox list mode doesn't support
scrolling" is simply ignorant.
Thank you again for calling me names. That's really ok, I don't mind.
I do mind twisting the reality.
Gnome uses bug tracking system. A single "bug" can track a defect
(i.e. what we also sometimes call a bug, hence the confusion) or a
feature request.
I understand those differences - I was simply using Gnome terminology.
They link each bounty to a "bug" i.e. a single entry in bug tracking
database.
Do you
consider that a sucess?
I consider 11 completed tasks a success, yes, even though the specific
model used by GNOME isn't the one I would recommend for Wikimedia (and I
wouldn't be surprised if most GNOME developers have never even heard about
the bounty system).
Well, and there's a difference between us.
I don't consider a bounty system whose result was fixing 11 out of 43
bugs over 4 month period (and I'm really gracious here, attributing
all the fixes to the bounty) while at the same time regular
development brought estimated 600*4*4=9600 bug fixes (again, to be
gracious I tone down my numbers here) to be a success.
And that's the closest thing you'll ever get to what wiki foundation
can do. It was an official thing, sponsored by Gnome foundation, they
obviously put effort into nominating bounty bugs, prepared nice web
pages, had irc channel for discussion, had clear rules and I don't
think they failed to evangelize this as much as they could.
They did try. And the result was simply dismal.
What can you possibly do better in wikipedia foundation case (except
buying ad during superbowl) ?
An open bounty offer that is not taken up doesn't
cost anyone anything.
It does cost the time and effort for preparing the bounty and managing
the system.
And finally, that's not the point. It doesn't make sense to have a
bounty system that doesn't work, even if it doesn't cost much. What
we're trying to figure out is if bounty systems are a good way to
improve wikimedia software.
And though you've made it clear that all past failures don't really
matter a single bit because, well, we're all different and this time
we'll do it right, I'll repeat: all past (several) attempts at bounty
systems were failures. Draw your own conclusions.
Krzysztof Kowalczyk |
http://blog.kowalczyk.info