4 ms·

This. I've always wondered why sites like GitHub/GitLab won't allow issues to have a bounty. It seems to me like its the obvious solution to crowdfunding OSS.

This. I've always wondered why sites like GitHub/GitLab won't allow issues to have a bounty. It seems to me like its the obvious solution to crowdfunding OSS. When I find an issue on GitHub requesting a new feature or reporting a bug that is important to me I should be able to throw down $5+ bucks to incentivize someone to fix it. I also know that I would personally contribute to OSS more if it didn't feel like I was doing community service but rather actually getting paid for my time.

voltagex_ 8y ago
Probably less of an issue now they're part of Microsoft, but if you're focused on source control / open source, you probably don't want to take on crowdfunding with all the associated drama and complexity, too. That's a business in itself.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- paulryanrogers 8y ago
  True, but with the right hooks in place other providers could fill that niche.
AmericanChopper 8y ago
If general consumers of OSS act entitled, then how entitled are bounty contributors who think their issues haven’t been properly fixed to their satisfaction going to be?
- olingern 8y ago
  It's not an easy problem to solve. I could see there being a queue of bounty slots available for purchase that maintainers set and could be increased or decreased at anytime. A person who wants to pay for a bounty would need to submit an issue, and the maintainer estimate it's complexity. At that point, the person filing the issue could click "Buy this issue" if the maintainer has bandwidth. Again, not easy -- and I'm sure the UX / business / execution would be delicate.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> I would personally contribute to OSS more if it didn't feel like I was doing community service but rather actually getting paid for my time. If you want that, you probably should look at UpWork instead of GitHub. Bounties are a nice way of prioritizing things, but most OSS projects won't get the kind of OSS contributions they want for the kind of money they need, simply because the kind of contributors they want can get 10x better pay on the job market, so why they should bother with OS when they can freelance? Discounting the recent trends of companies open-sourcing stuff to build a market for themselves elsewhere, open source was always, first and foremost, doing a community service. This aspect is why OSS developers put time into it instead of getting extra paid work.
- whyever 8y ago
  > but most OSS projects won't get the kind of OSS contributions they want for the kind of money they need, simply because the kind of contributors they want can get 10x better pay on the job market, so why they should bother with OS when they can freelance? It would still be nice for those who are interested in working on those issues regardless of payment.

voltagex_ 8y ago

Probably less of an issue now they're part of Microsoft, but if you're focused on source control / open source, you probably don't want to take on crowdfunding with all the associated drama and complexity, too. That's a business in itself.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
paulryanrogers 8y ago
True, but with the right hooks in place other providers could fill that niche.

AmericanChopper 8y ago

If general consumers of OSS act entitled, then how entitled are bounty contributors who think their issues haven’t been properly fixed to their satisfaction going to be?

olingern 8y ago
It's not an easy problem to solve. I could see there being a queue of bounty slots available for purchase that maintainers set and could be increased or decreased at anytime. A person who wants to pay for a bounty would need to submit an issue, and the maintainer estimate it's complexity. At that point, the person filing the issue could click "Buy this issue" if the maintainer has bandwidth. Again, not easy -- and I'm sure the UX / business / execution would be delicate.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> I would personally contribute to OSS more if it didn't feel like I was doing community service but rather actually getting paid for my time. If you want that, you probably should look at UpWork instead of GitHub. Bounties are a nice way of prioritizing things, but most OSS projects won't get the kind of OSS contributions they want for the kind of money they need, simply because the kind of contributors they want can get 10x better pay on the job market, so why they should bother with OS when they can freelance? Discounting the recent trends of companies open-sourcing stuff to build a market for themselves elsewhere, open source was always, first and foremost, doing a community service. This aspect is why OSS developers put time into it instead of getting extra paid work.

whyever 8y ago
> but most OSS projects won't get the kind of OSS contributions they want for the kind of money they need, simply because the kind of contributors they want can get 10x better pay on the job market, so why they should bother with OS when they can freelance? It would still be nice for those who are interested in working on those issues regardless of payment.