4 ms·

You're making some good, if aspirational points, but I'm still not convinced. After all, artists have had patrons for a long time. The gallery system is a relat

You're making some good, if aspirational points, but I'm still not convinced. After all, artists have had patrons for a long time. The gallery system is a relatively new invention. Do I believe that artistic creators are a net-win to society? 100% Do I wish that artistic professions were seen as worthy of support? Yes I do. But in actual today reality, most artists can announce that they are doing a show, staging a production, what have you, and make some money. I would argue that the only way for someone to approximate this in 2020 as a developer of creative but not economy-driving things is for Github to adopt a pool as described by the OP. One thing I want to be really clear about is that people shouldn't support projects with lots of stars just because they have lots of stars. Stars are a passible metric for evaluating which tool to choose, perhaps. But I think the power of the pool concept is that Github could hit you up when you git clone, or maybe even occasionally ping you with a "hey, are you finding this useful? consider adding it to your pool". Or how about opt-in reminders like "hey, you're about to add your 80th project to the pool, but at $80 pledged that would put your contribution below $1 for each project. no shade intended, but how cool would it be if you kept your pool >$2/project? it'll be the best value for $160 this month."

CaptArmchair 6y ago
Let's agree to disagree. It's perfectly valid to leverage Github and open source as a means to an end: either to secure an income as an employee through public exposure of your work, or secure patronage through donations in order to attain a type of (partial) financial independence that allows for creative freedom. Either way, every line of code that gets pushed in this way, was never directly commissioned nor sold to a paying customer. And that, well, that's a choice between different business models. It's not an inevitability as you make it seem. It's wonderful to see how open source has flourished, and people ought to be compensated for the work they willingly and consciously distribute u free. I'm more then happy to pledge a small donation left or right, or contribute a patch, a piece of documentation or do a bit of mouth-to-mouth promotion. Lamenting then that you can't cover your living expenses through donations and shifting the responsibility towards Github e.g. they should provide more affordances to funnel more people towards donating? That's quite an explicit take on monetization which is deserving of critique. Especially if the alternative entails, well, starting to properly value, market and sell your work, which is how the market essentially works. As I said, that doesn't exclude me from acknowledging wealth disparity, and the fact that loads of people try to use open source and Github as a jumping board to secure a steady wage. I think that's really important: I've hired people in the past for enthusiastically showing and discussing their work, as it shows so much over who they are a a person, what drives them, and how they think. Finally, let's not forget that Github isn't a charity nor a public administration: it's a private company with a profit motive as well. Which is a can of worm into itself if you start considering centralization, walled gardens and the nefarious consequences of those dynamics. (By the way, patronage or philanthropy, as you mentioned, historically wasn't driven by purel altruistic motives: nobility employed artists as a way to flaunt their wealth and their power towards their peers.)

CaptArmchair 6y ago

Let's agree to disagree. It's perfectly valid to leverage Github and open source as a means to an end: either to secure an income as an employee through public exposure of your work, or secure patronage through donations in order to attain a type of (partial) financial independence that allows for creative freedom. Either way, every line of code that gets pushed in this way, was never directly commissioned nor sold to a paying customer. And that, well, that's a choice between different business models. It's not an inevitability as you make it seem. It's wonderful to see how open source has flourished, and people ought to be compensated for the work they willingly and consciously distribute u free. I'm more then happy to pledge a small donation left or right, or contribute a patch, a piece of documentation or do a bit of mouth-to-mouth promotion. Lamenting then that you can't cover your living expenses through donations and shifting the responsibility towards Github e.g. they should provide more affordances to funnel more people towards donating? That's quite an explicit take on monetization which is deserving of critique. Especially if the alternative entails, well, starting to properly value, market and sell your work, which is how the market essentially works. As I said, that doesn't exclude me from acknowledging wealth disparity, and the fact that loads of people try to use open source and Github as a jumping board to secure a steady wage. I think that's really important: I've hired people in the past for enthusiastically showing and discussing their work, as it shows so much over who they are a a person, what drives them, and how they think. Finally, let's not forget that Github isn't a charity nor a public administration: it's a private company with a profit motive as well. Which is a can of worm into itself if you start considering centralization, walled gardens and the nefarious consequences of those dynamics. (By the way, patronage or philanthropy, as you mentioned, historically wasn't driven by purel altruistic motives: nobility employed artists as a way to flaunt their wealth and their power towards their peers.)