4 ms·

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 overcommi

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.