3 ms·
jnbiche, I didn't mean to say anything about you specifically! If you're experimenting with funding models, I support your experiments, too. But without looki
by kemitchell 7y ago
jnbiche, I didn't mean to say anything about you specifically!
If you're experimenting with funding models, I support your experiments, too. But without looking into specifics, I'm guessing you had the usual experience with README and website ads, sponsorship badges, or the like. I hope it was able to cement some new relationships, and perhaps make you more aware of who's relying on your work. But I wouldn't bet it made you significant money, or significantly changed how much you could or did contribute.
As for stdout versus README and so on, the lines aren't sharp, but I think there's a basic distinction to draw between an advertisement and something more like a credit or acknowledgment. As long as those who go looking for their credit can find it and point it out to others, all seems to be right. Sponsorship in a README fits there, in my view. Ads go where people will notice them, even when they don't go looking. They're frequently invasive. I don't like invasive, but that's where `funding` seems to fit.
There are middle grounds, too. Actors often negotiate for fair billing in relation to other players, for instance. And donors to cultural centers and other physical venues often get their names on plaques or stonework in the foyer. In my mind, all of that just points out how many conventions and expectations we've developed about funding in nearly every field but software.
In my comment above, I was reacting to your mention that Feross' approach seemed ill-conceived. I thought that was one-sided: It's not just about whether user-developers like it. It's also about whether it effectively gets devs paid. It's not well conceived if it doesn't work.
- jnbiche 7y agoFair enough. I apologize for getting overly defensive. That said, I do not think that this approach by Feross will work at all. Advertisers hate controversy, and given the fairly negative reception this approach has garnered, most of his sponsors (if they're aware) have now likely pulled their support or at least requested that he not put their ads on the terminal.
- kemitchell 7y agojnbiche, nothing to apologize for! I've shared your concerns about the ad-based approach from the get-go. I sincerely hope ads of the kind don't become the norm for open developer funding. We know their cost from funding other kinds of open work so well. I'm interested in this mostly because I see distaste for ads trampling respect for maintainer autonomy, and that is wrong. I've endured the cycle of harassment that follows any credible attempt to fund development work in a new way, seen friends go through it, and saw Feross going into it. It's psychologically impossible for us to experiment our way to approaches that work with peer support.
- jnbiche 7y ago> I've endured the cycle of harassment that follows any credible attempt to fund development work in a new way, seen friends go through it, and saw Feross going into it. It's psychologically impossible for us to experiment our way to approaches that work with peer support. I'm sorry to hear you (or any open source dev) has experienced harassment because of funding attempts. I disagree with Feross, but I condemn any organized harassment. I would add that it's fairly predicable that any funding that hinges on innovative uses of ad technology are going to run up against heavy resistance in our communities. There's just not a lot of patience for advertising among techies. But outside of advertising, I hope developers do experiment with new funding approaches. It's greatly needed.