4 ms·

This is potentially nefarious to everyone. 1. People perform poorly, creative and intellectually, when there is a reward at stake, specially if it is cash. Thi

This is potentially nefarious to everyone. 1. People perform poorly, creative and intellectually, when there is a reward at stake, specially if it is cash. This is proved by multiple studies. 2. Small cash compensations will shift the focus from the main reason people enjoy to code and contribute. Worst, if the amount of cash reward is inferior to the true value of the work they do (and it will be), people will feel undervalued and loose motivation. Either pay them well, or not pay at all. 3. It will be a constant remainder they should be making real money instead of making tips on github. 4. The system benefits developers by popularity instead of quality. Besides popular developers are those who need it the least. 5. Popularity and profit will poison the minds of the young Jedi's while coding thus decreasing overall code quality, creativity and productivity.

whit537 14y ago
It's also potentially virtuous. 1. Gittips aren't a paycheck, they are a no-strings-attached gift. 2. Small cash compensations will free people up to contribute to society on their own terms rather than wasting their time surfing Facebook in a cubicle. 3. It might be a reminder that their society values the contributions they make based on their passions and interests and not on their utility to a corporation. 4. Popular developers know who is doing the grunt work and deserves more recognition. They can call out such people via Twitter, etc. In the future I can imagine upgrading Gittip to allow high earners to distribute higher amounts per person per week. 5. Young Jedis will be incentivized to add true value to society as adjudicated by the wise crowd, rather than answering to a monolithic corporation as their societal proxy.
- aristidesfl 14y ago
  The only argument which makes sense at the light of what I said is number 4.
  - whit537 14y ago
    You'll have to say more if you want to try to merge horizons.
    - aristidesfl 14y ago
      The open source community works well despite, and thanks to, no money being involved (at least explicitly). The motivation obviously exists without money, and the results are better because of that. So, there is no problem to solve, just potential to poison one of the biggest qualities. The only argument which makes sense at the light of this, is number 4, and that is an interesting problem. Distribution of wealth.
      - whit537 14y ago
        Where I'm coming from is that I want to work on open source software, and I get really down on the hoops I have to jump through to do it--consulting, employment, starvation. I want to add value to society and I want society to value me in a more direct way. Tips are small so there's no strings attached. That's different than with other uses of money.

whit537 14y ago

It's also potentially virtuous. 1. Gittips aren't a paycheck, they are a no-strings-attached gift. 2. Small cash compensations will free people up to contribute to society on their own terms rather than wasting their time surfing Facebook in a cubicle. 3. It might be a reminder that their society values the contributions they make based on their passions and interests and not on their utility to a corporation. 4. Popular developers know who is doing the grunt work and deserves more recognition. They can call out such people via Twitter, etc. In the future I can imagine upgrading Gittip to allow high earners to distribute higher amounts per person per week. 5. Young Jedis will be incentivized to add true value to society as adjudicated by the wise crowd, rather than answering to a monolithic corporation as their societal proxy.

aristidesfl 14y ago
The only argument which makes sense at the light of what I said is number 4.
- whit537 14y ago
  You'll have to say more if you want to try to merge horizons.
  - aristidesfl 14y ago
    The open source community works well despite, and thanks to, no money being involved (at least explicitly). The motivation obviously exists without money, and the results are better because of that. So, there is no problem to solve, just potential to poison one of the biggest qualities. The only argument which makes sense at the light of this, is number 4, and that is an interesting problem. Distribution of wealth.
    - whit537 14y ago
      Where I'm coming from is that I want to work on open source software, and I get really down on the hoops I have to jump through to do it--consulting, employment, starvation. I want to add value to society and I want society to value me in a more direct way. Tips are small so there's no strings attached. That's different than with other uses of money.