4 ms·

This isn't a startup. It's a fun side project no one is expecting to make any money from. I understand the no-spec mentality, but it seems odd to apply it to

This isn't a startup. It's a fun side project no one is expecting to make any money from. I understand the no-spec mentality, but it seems odd to apply it to open source or a fun, no-profit side project. If a designer is interested in Ruby committers and wants to make it look pretty, then have fun!

sudont 16y ago
Then why not provide a 200 dollar RFP, solicit designers that love open source, and pick the best one? You gotta realize that designing stuff takes time. This means that there's a bunch of designers working hard for a prize that will most likely not be there. This isn't like OSS contributions where patches are integrated, this is direct competition for compensation, in the form of a spec work contest.
- jrallison 16y ago
  I'm pretty sure building http://rubycommitters.org/ http://rubycommitters.org/ takes time as well and I don't believe anyone is paying Aaron to build it. In fact, it sounds like it's costing him his hard earned "love bucks". Get over your hostility and either do something fun on the internets, or don't.
  - lwhi 16y ago
    You're missing the point. Aaron doesn't work on the off-chance that someone will accept his work. There aren't multiple people doing exactly the same thing as Aaron - completing for a single chance.
    - jrallison 16y ago
      I don't think I am. I never said Aaron and the potential designers are in the same position. I was merely responding to sudont's notion that a person's time must always be compensated by an up-front, cash contract. In reality, people spend their time on many things for many different reasons. My understanding is http://www.no-spec.com/ http://www.no-spec.com/ is a reaction to businesses exploiting designers through spec work (if that's wrong, please enlighten me). There is no one exploiting anyone here, just a developer who would like his open source, zero revenue, app to look presentable. A designer who only opens photoshop for cash probably won't be interested, but a designer who also loves to design in their free time may. In that way, Aaron and a potential designer may very well be similar. They don't treat their craft as a day job, but more as a lifestyle.
      - lwhi 16y ago
        The poster you responded to, was suggesting that a decent designer could be matched to the project before the majority of the work takes place. This makes sense. If you have a competition - the amount of effort expended is far greater, and much of that combined effort will have been spent for nothing. -- There's a commonly held assumption that design takes only a little bit of effort, and that it's so remarkably fun that little or no reward is required by its practitioners. This assumption is wrong, and even if it wasn't .. what's the point in creating a design that stands a very good chance of not being used?
        jrallison 16y ago
        You're right that a competition isn't the most efficient solution from a total effort / end result perspective. However, that's not what competitions are designed to provide. This isn't a corporate productivity debate. Competitions generate excitement, stroke entrant's competitive nature, provide some openness (in cases where the public participates), and promotes more out of the box thinking. You see it all the time with sports, the increasing number of hackathons (where yes, developers, designers, and others spend X hours building something nonstop for zero guaranteed reward), government initiatives (challenge.gov), etc. Religiously calling all competitions/contests bad because there are some companies which exploit the characteristics of a challenge is a bit naive. Note: I recognize that design is time intensive and not always fun. Hell, it's the same thing for developers.
        lwhi 16y ago
        For me, the debate isn't so much about corporate productivity - it's more about respect for people's time and effort. I understand what you're saying - but maybe we'll have to agree to disagree. Competitions too often seem like an excuse for cheap labour.
- nsfmc 16y ago
  i don't actually understand why this was downvoted. The point is fairly valid. More to the oss point, if you want to really treat this in an oss sort of way, then fork the project's theme or what have you, make skinning it a sort of project people would actually give their time to rather than dangling a carrot. I think the majority issue here is that most people don't mind giving up their time for something they care about, but most people don't like being commoditized.
jeffclark 16y ago
> If a designer is interested in Ruby committers and wants to make it look pretty, then have fun! And if they're not, they still have the option of not participating! That's what drives me nuts about all this "no-spec!/crowdsourcing is eeeevil!" chat on the Internet. Nobody's forcing anyone to participate. There's a very (very, very) large group of people who only have $500 to spend on branding their company. If someone can't/won't spend $10k to a "branding agency", should they not be allowed to have a logo at all? There are even MORE people who are willing to do a little work for the chance of winning $500 and seeing their work used by people not related to them. Disclaimer: I used to work at crowdspring. I've literally seen both sides of hundreds of these contests. Nobody's evil and everyone participating knows the risks of participating. It's a win-win.
- tptacek 16y ago
  There is indeed evil at Crowdspring and 99designs, though it's not on the offer side; designers routinely submit plagiarized work to contests. It's something you always have to be on the lookout for and it's a major downside of using those sites.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- lwhi 16y ago
  Creating an environment where people regularly work for the chance of being paid, is immoral imo. You can argue that no one forces these people to work - but that same argument could also be used by the proprietor of a child-labour camp or sweat shop.
  - lwhi 16y ago
    Okay down-voters; please explain why I'm wrong.

sudont 16y ago

Then why not provide a 200 dollar RFP, solicit designers that love open source, and pick the best one? You gotta realize that designing stuff takes time. This means that there's a bunch of designers working hard for a prize that will most likely not be there. This isn't like OSS contributions where patches are integrated, this is direct competition for compensation, in the form of a spec work contest.

jrallison 16y ago
I'm pretty sure building http://rubycommitters.org/ http://rubycommitters.org/ takes time as well and I don't believe anyone is paying Aaron to build it. In fact, it sounds like it's costing him his hard earned "love bucks". Get over your hostility and either do something fun on the internets, or don't.
- lwhi 16y ago
  You're missing the point. Aaron doesn't work on the off-chance that someone will accept his work. There aren't multiple people doing exactly the same thing as Aaron - completing for a single chance.
  - jrallison 16y ago
    I don't think I am. I never said Aaron and the potential designers are in the same position. I was merely responding to sudont's notion that a person's time must always be compensated by an up-front, cash contract. In reality, people spend their time on many things for many different reasons. My understanding is http://www.no-spec.com/ http://www.no-spec.com/ is a reaction to businesses exploiting designers through spec work (if that's wrong, please enlighten me). There is no one exploiting anyone here, just a developer who would like his open source, zero revenue, app to look presentable. A designer who only opens photoshop for cash probably won't be interested, but a designer who also loves to design in their free time may. In that way, Aaron and a potential designer may very well be similar. They don't treat their craft as a day job, but more as a lifestyle.
    - lwhi 16y ago
      The poster you responded to, was suggesting that a decent designer could be matched to the project before the majority of the work takes place. This makes sense. If you have a competition - the amount of effort expended is far greater, and much of that combined effort will have been spent for nothing. -- There's a commonly held assumption that design takes only a little bit of effort, and that it's so remarkably fun that little or no reward is required by its practitioners. This assumption is wrong, and even if it wasn't .. what's the point in creating a design that stands a very good chance of not being used?
      - jrallison 16y ago
        You're right that a competition isn't the most efficient solution from a total effort / end result perspective. However, that's not what competitions are designed to provide. This isn't a corporate productivity debate. Competitions generate excitement, stroke entrant's competitive nature, provide some openness (in cases where the public participates), and promotes more out of the box thinking. You see it all the time with sports, the increasing number of hackathons (where yes, developers, designers, and others spend X hours building something nonstop for zero guaranteed reward), government initiatives (challenge.gov), etc. Religiously calling all competitions/contests bad because there are some companies which exploit the characteristics of a challenge is a bit naive. Note: I recognize that design is time intensive and not always fun. Hell, it's the same thing for developers.
        lwhi 16y ago
        For me, the debate isn't so much about corporate productivity - it's more about respect for people's time and effort. I understand what you're saying - but maybe we'll have to agree to disagree. Competitions too often seem like an excuse for cheap labour.
nsfmc 16y ago
i don't actually understand why this was downvoted. The point is fairly valid. More to the oss point, if you want to really treat this in an oss sort of way, then fork the project's theme or what have you, make skinning it a sort of project people would actually give their time to rather than dangling a carrot. I think the majority issue here is that most people don't mind giving up their time for something they care about, but most people don't like being commoditized.

jeffclark 16y ago

> If a designer is interested in Ruby committers and wants to make it look pretty, then have fun! And if they're not, they still have the option of not participating! That's what drives me nuts about all this "no-spec!/crowdsourcing is eeeevil!" chat on the Internet. Nobody's forcing anyone to participate. There's a very (very, very) large group of people who only have $500 to spend on branding their company. If someone can't/won't spend $10k to a "branding agency", should they not be allowed to have a logo at all? There are even MORE people who are willing to do a little work for the chance of winning $500 and seeing their work used by people not related to them. Disclaimer: I used to work at crowdspring. I've literally seen both sides of hundreds of these contests. Nobody's evil and everyone participating knows the risks of participating. It's a win-win.

tptacek 16y ago
There is indeed evil at Crowdspring and 99designs, though it's not on the offer side; designers routinely submit plagiarized work to contests. It's something you always have to be on the lookout for and it's a major downside of using those sites.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
lwhi 16y ago
Creating an environment where people regularly work for the chance of being paid, is immoral imo. You can argue that no one forces these people to work - but that same argument could also be used by the proprietor of a child-labour camp or sweat shop.
- lwhi 16y ago
  Okay down-voters; please explain why I'm wrong.