3 ms·

Instead of paying volunteers would contracting critical tasks to an FOSS friendly software consulting firm be less controversial for Debian (although that might

Instead of paying volunteers would contracting critical tasks to an FOSS friendly software consulting firm be less controversial for Debian (although that might not be an option due to expense)? Just curious

rleigh 6y ago
It's an interesting question. Like bounties, I think it would not work, for similar reasons. Work you contract out is effectively saying: none of you volunteers are up to the task. We'll have to get someone better than you to do it. That's not great for the psyche of the project. And this has already happened from a certain perspective. (I'm biased here, for the record.) Look at the systemd debate and fallout. At its core, this was effectively contracting out the maintenance of the whole base system to a third party organisation, and telling the Debian developers that they weren't allowed to touch it in all but the most superficial way. This isn't about the technical merits of the decision, by the way. It's about how the organisation went from being an independent technical leader with development driven by its own people, who were highly regarded in their own right, to being a follower being told what to do by others. It took away the primary driver of Debian's independent existence and the agency of its developers to drive change at that level. (It was a minor contributing factor behind my leaving the project.) And like bounties, there are concerns over who gets the money. Is it subject to favouritism, influence, or other factors. As I said in the original post, I think it could (and does) work for other organisations. What makes Debian unique is that its origins were a 100% volunteer-driven self-sufficient effort, and that essentially defines the project's culture to this day. Every bit of internal infrastructure and tooling was originally self-developed. I used to maintain some of it myself. Other organisations would have no political issues with paying a contractor to "get x done". But being a volunteer effort, actually "doing x" is as important to the volunteers as the end goal.

rleigh 6y ago

It's an interesting question. Like bounties, I think it would not work, for similar reasons. Work you contract out is effectively saying: none of you volunteers are up to the task. We'll have to get someone better than you to do it. That's not great for the psyche of the project. And this has already happened from a certain perspective. (I'm biased here, for the record.) Look at the systemd debate and fallout. At its core, this was effectively contracting out the maintenance of the whole base system to a third party organisation, and telling the Debian developers that they weren't allowed to touch it in all but the most superficial way. This isn't about the technical merits of the decision, by the way. It's about how the organisation went from being an independent technical leader with development driven by its own people, who were highly regarded in their own right, to being a follower being told what to do by others. It took away the primary driver of Debian's independent existence and the agency of its developers to drive change at that level. (It was a minor contributing factor behind my leaving the project.) And like bounties, there are concerns over who gets the money. Is it subject to favouritism, influence, or other factors. As I said in the original post, I think it could (and does) work for other organisations. What makes Debian unique is that its origins were a 100% volunteer-driven self-sufficient effort, and that essentially defines the project's culture to this day. Every bit of internal infrastructure and tooling was originally self-developed. I used to maintain some of it myself. Other organisations would have no political issues with paying a contractor to "get x done". But being a volunteer effort, actually "doing x" is as important to the volunteers as the end goal.