3 ms·

Sadly, developers also have a history of being able to game the system a lot better than sales as well, partially because of the measurement problems pointed ou

Sadly, developers also have a history of being able to game the system a lot better than sales as well, partially because of the measurement problems pointed out in the article, and such a system usually ends in failure. Also, the bounty scheme has largely failed in the open source world, perhaps because they bounties never saw $450,000, and I personally doubt the model could be effectively applied to an even smaller team. Sure, many people would like to have more money, but sadly there is a lot of devwork that is of little 'financial value' that has to be done and that would surely suffer with such a system in place, driving the overall quality lower as it doesn't create a sense of improving the product, instead pushing for being awarded the largest or best bounty.

gridspy 17y ago
It would be very easy to accumulate a lot of technical debt (hacked up code) very quickly. Also, it would be frustrating for developers being paid performance pay but not totally in control of their environment. Bitter infighting might occur about language and technology choices, server designs, even dev machine quality or working hours. However, I do like the idea of proposing a general goal and asking developers to come up with their own ways to meet those goals.
- gridspy 17y ago
  Perhaps you could solve the technical debt issue with delayed payment. 50% now, 50% 2 months later - 10% per bug still in the original code that has not yet been fixed.