6 ms·

What about a system that allows requiring a fee to "open an issue" or "file a bug report". GitHub could add that to the issue creator pretty easily. And maybe t

What about a system that allows requiring a fee to "open an issue" or "file a bug report". GitHub could add that to the issue creator pretty easily. And maybe there could be tiers. Free issue == no guarantees. $5000 issue == guaranteed fix.

spaced-out 4y ago
Sounds like a bad deal for the developer to promise they'll "fix" any issue for a flat rate of $5000 (minus whatever Github takes). What if there's a dispute about whether it's fixed or not, who decides who gets the keep the money?
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  One thing that happens all the time, is the old "Since it doesn't do what I want it to do, it's a bug" thing. Lack of a feature is considered a bug. This is often exacerbated by a similar commercial offering, that has the feature. I used to get that crap, all the time, in my work. These days, no one pays any attention to my work, which suits me just fine. I basically write for myself.
- Jaygles 4y ago
  Well the amount listed could be up to the developer. And it doesn't need to be an instant transaction, if the scope of work is large it could lead to negotiation on cost and expectations
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    This doesn't have to be formalized, though. Any company can do this right now by hiring a contractor to do the work.
tomjen3 4y ago
Hell no. If you find a bug and do a reasonable effort at reproducing it, you are helping the project. QA has value and is not a burden.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  I usually amplify this, but with tiers (i.e. as a bounty) it suddenly makes a lot of sense to me. Not all issues are bugs. The perverse incentive would be to avoid fixing bugs or adding features because someone might add a bounty to it in the future, but that's limited by the possibility of a fork. Maybe limit UI for bounties to FOSS projects (that can be forked.)
edflsafoiewq 4y ago
You thought people commenting on old issues instead of opening a new one was bad now...
JohnFen 4y ago
That doesn't really address the underlying disconnect, though. A lot of FOSS work is done as a labor of love, not a job. In order to make good on a promise to fix something for money, that means it's now a job. That may be OK for many FOSS projects, but it is completely incompatible with others.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
setr 4y ago
I think you’d want time responsibility to fall the other way — a bounty system basically — where the fee can be offered to anyone willing to clear the task. This it can also capture negotiation, invalid tickets, etc by nature of both parties being involved before the task is undertaken. One problem though is you’d need a strict definition of complete, and someone to arbitrate.

spaced-out 4y ago

Sounds like a bad deal for the developer to promise they'll "fix" any issue for a flat rate of $5000 (minus whatever Github takes). What if there's a dispute about whether it's fixed or not, who decides who gets the keep the money?

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
One thing that happens all the time, is the old "Since it doesn't do what I want it to do, it's a bug" thing. Lack of a feature is considered a bug. This is often exacerbated by a similar commercial offering, that has the feature. I used to get that crap, all the time, in my work. These days, no one pays any attention to my work, which suits me just fine. I basically write for myself.
Jaygles 4y ago
Well the amount listed could be up to the developer. And it doesn't need to be an instant transaction, if the scope of work is large it could lead to negotiation on cost and expectations
- JohnFen 4y ago
  This doesn't have to be formalized, though. Any company can do this right now by hiring a contractor to do the work.

tomjen3 4y ago

Hell no. If you find a bug and do a reasonable effort at reproducing it, you are helping the project. QA has value and is not a burden.

pessimizer 4y ago
I usually amplify this, but with tiers (i.e. as a bounty) it suddenly makes a lot of sense to me. Not all issues are bugs. The perverse incentive would be to avoid fixing bugs or adding features because someone might add a bounty to it in the future, but that's limited by the possibility of a fork. Maybe limit UI for bounties to FOSS projects (that can be forked.)

edflsafoiewq 4y ago

You thought people commenting on old issues instead of opening a new one was bad now...

JohnFen 4y ago

That doesn't really address the underlying disconnect, though. A lot of FOSS work is done as a labor of love, not a job. In order to make good on a promise to fix something for money, that means it's now a job. That may be OK for many FOSS projects, but it is completely incompatible with others.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

setr 4y ago

I think you’d want time responsibility to fall the other way — a bounty system basically — where the fee can be offered to anyone willing to clear the task. This it can also capture negotiation, invalid tickets, etc by nature of both parties being involved before the task is undertaken. One problem though is you’d need a strict definition of complete, and someone to arbitrate.