13 ms·

I would suspect that CanYa is behind this change. They I believe acquired BountySource two years ago, and probably just enough of the old guard has left for the

I would suspect that CanYa is behind this change. They I believe acquired BountySource two years ago, and probably just enough of the old guard has left for them to push this change through internally. Not sure what the motive would be though.

antihero 6y ago
> Not sure what the motive would be though. I would imagine that it is the money.
gwd 6y ago
> Not sure what the motive would be though. A non-evil motive would be that for accounting reasons that has to be kept on the books as a liability, and it's not nice to keep liabilities around indefinitely. There are lots of situations where this is the case, but where "just keep the money" is actually accepted practice. Gift cards, for instance. Also, I've seen IT support contracts where you purchase a certain number of "hours" that you spend on logged work; and those hours expire if you don't use them within 2 years. But obviously this is completely different, since in the above two cases, you as the consumer have control over when the spend happens; you have no way of knowing if or when anyone is going to fulfill your bounty.
- SahAssar 6y ago
  It's also very different because in those cases the payer knew (or at least could know) that when paying. Here they are just doing it after the fact.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Yeah, I'm sure they want to clear these off the books, but I think the "right" way they could've handled this is to take their cut, and pay out the bounty to the maintainer of the project. I have to imagine the amount of money they're looking at collecting here in the >2 year old bucket is large enough that they're willing to take the PR hit. There's probably a good chunk of change there held by now-inactive users who they're hoping won't actually do anything about the change like redirecting their funds. It's also really sad because the open source project I contribute to is six years old, and had a couple year quiet period, but is often tackling multi-year old issues now. In our case, we don't use BountySource, but had we, we'd be looking at losing funding that we were still very much intending to earn.
  - josephcsible 6y ago
    > There's probably a good chunk of change there held by now-inactive users who they're hoping won't actually do anything about the change like redirecting their funds. Or it could be exactly the opposite bucket: any bounties less than 2 years old are still subject to expiration, but they're not allowing you to redirect them when they expire.
- dec0dedab0de 6y ago
  It's just as evil when they do it for gift cards.
  - gwd 6y ago
    You'll note I said, "accepted practice" rather than "is perfectly fine". ;-)
jtbayly 6y ago
You can’t think of a motive for stealing money? Lol.

antihero 6y ago

> Not sure what the motive would be though. I would imagine that it is the money.

gwd 6y ago

> Not sure what the motive would be though. A non-evil motive would be that for accounting reasons that has to be kept on the books as a liability, and it's not nice to keep liabilities around indefinitely. There are lots of situations where this is the case, but where "just keep the money" is actually accepted practice. Gift cards, for instance. Also, I've seen IT support contracts where you purchase a certain number of "hours" that you spend on logged work; and those hours expire if you don't use them within 2 years. But obviously this is completely different, since in the above two cases, you as the consumer have control over when the spend happens; you have no way of knowing if or when anyone is going to fulfill your bounty.

SahAssar 6y ago
It's also very different because in those cases the payer knew (or at least could know) that when paying. Here they are just doing it after the fact.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Yeah, I'm sure they want to clear these off the books, but I think the "right" way they could've handled this is to take their cut, and pay out the bounty to the maintainer of the project. I have to imagine the amount of money they're looking at collecting here in the >2 year old bucket is large enough that they're willing to take the PR hit. There's probably a good chunk of change there held by now-inactive users who they're hoping won't actually do anything about the change like redirecting their funds. It's also really sad because the open source project I contribute to is six years old, and had a couple year quiet period, but is often tackling multi-year old issues now. In our case, we don't use BountySource, but had we, we'd be looking at losing funding that we were still very much intending to earn.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  > There's probably a good chunk of change there held by now-inactive users who they're hoping won't actually do anything about the change like redirecting their funds. Or it could be exactly the opposite bucket: any bounties less than 2 years old are still subject to expiration, but they're not allowing you to redirect them when they expire.
dec0dedab0de 6y ago
It's just as evil when they do it for gift cards.
- gwd 6y ago
  You'll note I said, "accepted practice" rather than "is perfectly fine". ;-)

jtbayly 6y ago

You can’t think of a motive for stealing money? Lol.