Frithjof Engel wrote:
On 26.07.2004 15:03:52 +0100, Timwi wrote:
The study does not take into account the
possibility of "paid
volunteers", because there have been few such systems in the past.
The reason for that is that it would not work. You either work because
of the money you earn or because of the fun you have. There is no middle-way
IMHO.
You're digressing. I was talking of "paid volunteers", and then you say
"it would not work". It did briefly work for LiveJournal. Whether it
would work for Wikimedia has yet to be discovered, and I would like to
ask you to refrain from jumping to conclusions before we know anything
for definite.
Ordinary TODO list:
* Fix bug that the app cannot handle filenames longer than 255 chars
* Fix memory leaks when editing file
* Implement an export feature
Reward-driven TODO list:
* 1$ For fixing bug that the app cannot handle filenames longer than 255 chars
* 2$ Fix memory leaks when editing file
* Implement an export feature
Don't you immediately start to evaluate the tasks based on the money you can
make? Your interest for developing shifts automagically.
You're forgetting something important here. Shifting the developers'
focus is the *whole point* of offering payments. If it really was the
way you described, all the better! That's what we *want*! Because that
way we could get the developers to work on exactly those things that are
needed most, by offering payment for them.
However, I doubt many people are that one-sided. Well... obviously, I
don't know what most people are like, but I can say what I'm like and
hope that I'm not alone. :-) No, the introduction of money into the
equation would not entirely eliminate the factor of interest for me. If
you offer only 2$ for a bugfix that I have absolutely no motivation to
work on, then I will feel it's not worth the 2$. On the other hand, a
simple/easy bugfix that has no money attached to it may still get my
attention. (And in all honesty, that's bad. We want the important bugs
to be fixed, not the easy ones.)
Timwi