4 ms·

I have a concept sitting in <that folder with all the ideas> that is pretty high on my list of "man, I want to make this happen" but would need a team to execut

I have a concept sitting in <that folder with all the ideas> that is pretty high on my list of "man, I want to make this happen" but would need a team to execute on. The idea is to integrate the kickstarter model with github's issues (specifically, feature requests). You run an open-source project and people can submit feature requests that come with a fundraising campaign. When someone wants the software to do something new (support a new platform, implement an interface, etc) they draft a campaign a la kickstarter, someone who can contribute to the project negotiates with the drafter pricing, targets, and stretch goals. Past this point, it's the drafter's responsibility to do the marketing for the campaign and raise funds. Once the target $ amount is hit, it's on the person who picked up the contract to get the work done. There are, of course, a ton of details to work out, and executing on this is going to be resource-intense on a number of vectors that aren't necessarily technical (legal, finance, hosting costs). Also, I suck at UI. The business itself would naturally be a non-profit. addendum: I also have a day job that I have no intention of leaving, so factor that in to time-to-completion.

OtomotO 4y ago
Just a sidenote: One such detail is the timeframe... I am my own boss and I love to do contract work, but I cannot say "Yes, I will do this", commit to it and then after months the money is raised and I am drowning in projects.
- eljimmy 4y ago
  Perhaps the money can be pledged and held in escrow either until someone accepts the work for scheduling or it gets withdrawn by the pledgee due to inaction.
  - pksebben 4y ago
    Truly a tricky spot. Who keeps an eye on the features for things like code quality / deliverables? I don't know how I would solve this, yet.
techdragon 4y ago
Sounds similar to bountysource. How do you see your idea succeeding where they have failed?
- blantonl 4y ago
  Because it's his idea and he can do it better than them. he's also got luck on his side. While this sounds tongue in cheek, it's probably true. I'd bet 9 time out of 10, this is what literally happens. I know that for my highly successful business that I started, I thought I could do it better, and I was in the right place at the right time (luck)
  - ksec 4y ago
    This is both strange, and refreshing to hear on HN. Luck. Quite possibly a forbidden word in the worldview of US Media, VC and Tech.
    - pc86 4y ago
      The tech mogul who denies luck exists and contributes all of their success to their own ingenuity and prowess is a straw man. Perhaps with a few notable exceptions, that person simply does not exist. Everyone knows luck exists, and almost everyone acknowledges it plays a key role in one's success.
      - comfypotato 4y ago
        Luck and hard work do seem to correlate, but they are certainly entirely separate (and both are essential to success).
  - pksebben 4y ago
    I don't believe I can succeed where they failed- hadn't heard of em! would be awesome to not have to build it myself, so I'll go check em out.
  - pksebben 4y ago
dllthomas 4y ago
I think my biggest concern with the idea as specified is that most projects probably need to be trying to fund multiple issues, but that could lead to overcommitting if multiple fund at around the same time. I suppose you could guard against that by capping estimated workload and preventing new issues from "succeeding" if they would put that over the top. It seems like it would be frustrating to have contributed to a goal and see it get enough money pledged, but then not get the thing I want because some other goal finished first. On the other hand, that might be helpful pressure to get people contributing?
- pksebben 4y ago
  This is when I admit that the concept isn't quite done baking. My intuitive (read: hand-wavy) answer is that the negotiation between devs / feature requesters should take this into account - the pricing reflecting the amount of work * the scarcity of the dev's time. There's also no reason that a single project == a single dev. If it's really an open source project, the feature requests could be posted as bounties and devs could bid on them. Still don't have a solid idea as to how 'contribution timeouts' would work - with kickstarter, the timeline for funding + development + production are all managed by the same party, which simplifies things enough to (mostly) solve this issue. I'm sure that it would have to look different here. All that said, I haven't yet taken a look at the site that someone else responded with, which sounds like it does comparable work. If so, I might just hitch train to them.
ghiculescu 4y ago
> The business itself would naturally be a non-profit I’m curious why this is naturally so? There’s no shame in profiting off your work.
- pc86 4y ago
  Not the GP, but non-profit doesn't mean it doesn't make money, and it doesn't even mean the people that started it can't become fabulously wealthy. It just means you don't horde money, and that profit isn't necessarily the goal. Look at all the non-profits paying their executive half a million a year in salary.
- pksebben 4y ago
  it's an ethos thing. I think a capitalist mindset (grow grow grow) is antithetical to good open source. once money is the primary motivation, good software that does good things that people actually want can't be the primary motivation.
imtringued 4y ago
Ok but how about we just plan a simple roadmap and have funding goals for each stage of the roadmap? In that case the only challenge would be holding funds in escrow for unstarted milestones so that you must finish one milestone before getting funding for the next milestone. Edit: It already exists: LFX Crowdfunding.
- pksebben 4y ago
  Excellent find! I'm gonna peruse for a while. To save the next guy typing: https://lfx.linuxfoundation.org/tools/crowdfunding/ https://lfx.linuxfoundation.org/tools/crowdfunding/
intelVISA 4y ago
> addendum: I also have a day job that I have no intention of leaving, so factor that in to time-to-completion. Then sadly you must resign yourself to watch the folder grow...
TimJRobinson 4y ago
This is almost exactly what Gitcoin does. And it's all about open sourcing everything.

OtomotO 4y ago

Just a sidenote: One such detail is the timeframe... I am my own boss and I love to do contract work, but I cannot say "Yes, I will do this", commit to it and then after months the money is raised and I am drowning in projects.

eljimmy 4y ago
Perhaps the money can be pledged and held in escrow either until someone accepts the work for scheduling or it gets withdrawn by the pledgee due to inaction.
- pksebben 4y ago
  Truly a tricky spot. Who keeps an eye on the features for things like code quality / deliverables? I don't know how I would solve this, yet.

techdragon 4y ago

Sounds similar to bountysource. How do you see your idea succeeding where they have failed?

blantonl 4y ago
Because it's his idea and he can do it better than them. he's also got luck on his side. While this sounds tongue in cheek, it's probably true. I'd bet 9 time out of 10, this is what literally happens. I know that for my highly successful business that I started, I thought I could do it better, and I was in the right place at the right time (luck)
- ksec 4y ago
  This is both strange, and refreshing to hear on HN. Luck. Quite possibly a forbidden word in the worldview of US Media, VC and Tech.
  - pc86 4y ago
    The tech mogul who denies luck exists and contributes all of their success to their own ingenuity and prowess is a straw man. Perhaps with a few notable exceptions, that person simply does not exist. Everyone knows luck exists, and almost everyone acknowledges it plays a key role in one's success.
    - comfypotato 4y ago
      Luck and hard work do seem to correlate, but they are certainly entirely separate (and both are essential to success).
- pksebben 4y ago
  I don't believe I can succeed where they failed- hadn't heard of em! would be awesome to not have to build it myself, so I'll go check em out.
- pksebben 4y ago

dllthomas 4y ago

I think my biggest concern with the idea as specified is that most projects probably need to be trying to fund multiple issues, but that could lead to overcommitting if multiple fund at around the same time. I suppose you could guard against that by capping estimated workload and preventing new issues from "succeeding" if they would put that over the top. It seems like it would be frustrating to have contributed to a goal and see it get enough money pledged, but then not get the thing I want because some other goal finished first. On the other hand, that might be helpful pressure to get people contributing?

pksebben 4y ago
This is when I admit that the concept isn't quite done baking. My intuitive (read: hand-wavy) answer is that the negotiation between devs / feature requesters should take this into account - the pricing reflecting the amount of work * the scarcity of the dev's time. There's also no reason that a single project == a single dev. If it's really an open source project, the feature requests could be posted as bounties and devs could bid on them. Still don't have a solid idea as to how 'contribution timeouts' would work - with kickstarter, the timeline for funding + development + production are all managed by the same party, which simplifies things enough to (mostly) solve this issue. I'm sure that it would have to look different here. All that said, I haven't yet taken a look at the site that someone else responded with, which sounds like it does comparable work. If so, I might just hitch train to them.

ghiculescu 4y ago

> The business itself would naturally be a non-profit I’m curious why this is naturally so? There’s no shame in profiting off your work.

pc86 4y ago
Not the GP, but non-profit doesn't mean it doesn't make money, and it doesn't even mean the people that started it can't become fabulously wealthy. It just means you don't horde money, and that profit isn't necessarily the goal. Look at all the non-profits paying their executive half a million a year in salary.
pksebben 4y ago
it's an ethos thing. I think a capitalist mindset (grow grow grow) is antithetical to good open source. once money is the primary motivation, good software that does good things that people actually want can't be the primary motivation.

imtringued 4y ago

Ok but how about we just plan a simple roadmap and have funding goals for each stage of the roadmap? In that case the only challenge would be holding funds in escrow for unstarted milestones so that you must finish one milestone before getting funding for the next milestone. Edit: It already exists: LFX Crowdfunding.

pksebben 4y ago
Excellent find! I'm gonna peruse for a while. To save the next guy typing: https://lfx.linuxfoundation.org/tools/crowdfunding/ https://lfx.linuxfoundation.org/tools/crowdfunding/

intelVISA 4y ago

> addendum: I also have a day job that I have no intention of leaving, so factor that in to time-to-completion. Then sadly you must resign yourself to watch the folder grow...

TimJRobinson 4y ago

This is almost exactly what Gitcoin does. And it's all about open sourcing everything.