3 ms·

In my opinion, Resque so far failed because like a lot of OSS projects (and unlike Sidekiq), it isn't built on sustainable economical grounds - from the maintai

In my opinion, Resque so far failed because like a lot of OSS projects (and unlike Sidekiq), it isn't built on sustainable economical grounds - from the maintainer POV. Bringing outside "funding" can work for a while (see JRuby), but when the funding stops, it only underlines that the financial engine should really be carefully "designed" at the core of the OSS project, for things to be maintainable on the very long run. Otherwise history is bound to repeat itself. Large projects can enjoy a large pool of contributors, sometimes with less risks of burn-out (often seen on small OSS projects around me at least), each contributing marginally, with a few paid core members (either directly or indirectly via by-products of a well paid activity), but for smaller projects like Resque, it's more likely a single individual full-time, paid by the project. Again Sidekiq is really a great inspiration here for me (disclaimer: I plan to launch a "pro" offering for an OSS project I manage at http://kiba-etl.org/ http://kiba-etl.org/, and maintained another open-source for a while before which ultimately went to the cesspit).

steveklabnik 11y ago
Yup, this is exactly it. The only reason I was able to do all the open source work I did was because of my job at Jumpstart Labs, and once that ended, well... That said, as you mentioned, this is pretty much the default state for the large, large part of open source projects. Something's got to give somewhere, eventually.
- thibaut_barrere 11y ago
  What is your take on the Sidekiq model? I'm really curious to hear more about that :-) I see a number of people around me currently thinking about putting a "fair salary" at the core of their future open-source work. Often it completely changes what the delivered value should ultimately be etc (something I think Mike did think about - I believe). Do you have thoughts on that approach?
  - steveklabnik 11y ago
    My thoughts are mostly "I'm glad it's working out for Mike, and I hope others can follow his path." I personally have taken pursued the patron model, but that also is because with Rust, that's the only real way to do it.
    - thibaut_barrere 11y ago
      By patron model, to clarify, you mean a single large company paying most of the bills and bringing funding, right? (either because they want to promote innovation, or this generates financial gains, etc etc)? I would also think that for a language, this is probably the best model (even if it failed with IronRuby, or if JRuby funding sources moved over time etc). This is a fairly large endeavour, so it makes sense (at least I believe it!).
      - steveklabnik 11y ago
        Yes. Though I mean me personally, not the language itself. I wanted to work on Rust full time, Mozilla wanted to hire someone to work on Rust full time, it fits.
        thibaut_barrere 11y ago
        It's great that it works for you one on one, sincerely! I hope though that we will see more occurrences of OSS projects where N customers are sending money to directly finance the sustainability of the OSS product, just because it delivers value for them (not a moral obligation or PR etc - note that I'm not stating that Mozilla is doing this!). I feel for libraries & components (unlike languages maybe, as we said), at that specific scale, it can work very well.
        steveklabnik 11y ago
        I do too.

steveklabnik 11y ago

Yup, this is exactly it. The only reason I was able to do all the open source work I did was because of my job at Jumpstart Labs, and once that ended, well... That said, as you mentioned, this is pretty much the default state for the large, large part of open source projects. Something's got to give somewhere, eventually.

thibaut_barrere 11y ago
What is your take on the Sidekiq model? I'm really curious to hear more about that :-) I see a number of people around me currently thinking about putting a "fair salary" at the core of their future open-source work. Often it completely changes what the delivered value should ultimately be etc (something I think Mike did think about - I believe). Do you have thoughts on that approach?
- steveklabnik 11y ago
  My thoughts are mostly "I'm glad it's working out for Mike, and I hope others can follow his path." I personally have taken pursued the patron model, but that also is because with Rust, that's the only real way to do it.
  - thibaut_barrere 11y ago
    By patron model, to clarify, you mean a single large company paying most of the bills and bringing funding, right? (either because they want to promote innovation, or this generates financial gains, etc etc)? I would also think that for a language, this is probably the best model (even if it failed with IronRuby, or if JRuby funding sources moved over time etc). This is a fairly large endeavour, so it makes sense (at least I believe it!).
    - steveklabnik 11y ago
      Yes. Though I mean me personally, not the language itself. I wanted to work on Rust full time, Mozilla wanted to hire someone to work on Rust full time, it fits.
      - thibaut_barrere 11y ago
        It's great that it works for you one on one, sincerely! I hope though that we will see more occurrences of OSS projects where N customers are sending money to directly finance the sustainability of the OSS product, just because it delivers value for them (not a moral obligation or PR etc - note that I'm not stating that Mozilla is doing this!). I feel for libraries & components (unlike languages maybe, as we said), at that specific scale, it can work very well.
        steveklabnik 11y ago
        I do too.