Ah, in retrospect that makes sense and I misunderstood. > And for all the talk about funding developer time, discussion about the operations side is notoriousl

Ah, in retrospect that makes sense and I misunderstood. > And for all the talk about funding developer time, discussion about the operations side is notoriously quiet. There's a few good actors that help us out, and we're trying to raise awareness of the issue. > You just don't see a lot of volunteers to get paged in the middle of the night when the website is down. That's a great point, that's some good work you are doing and I'll admit that I needed my awareness raised on that issue as well. Thanks. > In a sense, it matters whether your charitable goal is to reward lifetime contributions, or to gift the community better software, and in small ways these can be contradictory. Especially if continued funding relies on demonstrating return on the gifts, merely perpetuating the status quo is a problem. Well put, I'm a believer in the end goal being better free software and rewarding contributors is a (complex and risky) means to that end. Good points about the benefits of bringing in juniors and the subtle but important differences between openness at different architectural layers as well.