3 ms·

I find it hard to believe receiving nothing is better for moral than receiving something. They acknowledge they have issues they can't fix due to a manpower sh

I find it hard to believe receiving nothing is better for moral than receiving something. They acknowledge they have issues they can't fix due to a manpower shortage, they also acknowledge they have more money than they can spend. Paying market wage may not be realistic, but supporting or donating something to developers who support them would go a long way to attracting additional volunteers.

michaelt 2y ago
I'm not sure I agree. I mean, a silicon valley developer getting paid $200k/year might fix a bug in some open source software for free because it was bothering him and he wanted to give something back to the project. But if I offer that same developer $100 to bail on date night with his wife to fix a bug for me? That's not an offer I'd expect him to take me up on.
- swores 2y ago
  I broadly agree with your point - that in many situations people feel happier and more willing to donate their time than to be paid but paid less than they feel their time is worth commercially. But you made the point badly, confusing things by adding in the date night - so that instead of comparing "fix bug for free" vs "fix bug and be paid, but much less than their usual hourly rate", you instead compared "fix bug for free at a time that suits them" vs "fix bug at an inconvenient time and get paid less than their usual hourly rate". I can't actually work out why you bothered to bring bailing on a date night into it at all...
  - michaelt 2y ago
    I mention that merely to illustrate that our hypothetical $200k developer has good things he could be doing with his limited discretionary time. The time spent fixing a bug for $100 doesn't get magicked out of nowhere - that's time that could be spent meeting friends, doing sports, spending time with family, reading books, creating art, enjoying good food and wine, learning new things, or even sleeping! For a similar concept expressed in a wordier way, read about Maslow's hierarchy of needs [1]. Our hypothetical developer's physiological and safety needs are fully met - and their unmet needs won't be much helped by $100. I avoided this and chose the wording I did because some of Maslow's wording like "self-actualization" and "transcendence" kinda invites confusion IMHO. Far less confusing and questionable, I thought, to merely argue that sex is more fun than software development. But apparently not... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
wccrawford 2y ago
Some people might be receptive to getting $100 for something they spent dozens of hours on, but then others will wonder why they didn't also get $100 for their dozens of hours recently. Others will look at that and calculate how far under minimum wage it was, and start to question if it's worth their time after all. You end up with bad feelings on every side unless you pay market wages, and even then you end up with people questioning if they just took on another full-time job, instead of a hobby. It's really, really hard to add money to the equation and not make things worse.
- InsomniacL 2y ago
  There's only 10 people since 2024 that have made more than 10 commits to JellyFin. I think if they gave an incentive they would have benefited more so than lost.
illiac786 2y ago
> I find it hard to believe receiving nothing is better for moral than receiving something. Check the ultimatum game for proof that people are definitely able to prefer no money at all. I’m not saying this is what is happening here, but money doesn’t come alone, and overall it might be worse than no money. My point is, money is not everything - sounds really old, but it’s surprisingly true still.

michaelt 2y ago

I'm not sure I agree. I mean, a silicon valley developer getting paid $200k/year might fix a bug in some open source software for free because it was bothering him and he wanted to give something back to the project. But if I offer that same developer $100 to bail on date night with his wife to fix a bug for me? That's not an offer I'd expect him to take me up on.

swores 2y ago
I broadly agree with your point - that in many situations people feel happier and more willing to donate their time than to be paid but paid less than they feel their time is worth commercially. But you made the point badly, confusing things by adding in the date night - so that instead of comparing "fix bug for free" vs "fix bug and be paid, but much less than their usual hourly rate", you instead compared "fix bug for free at a time that suits them" vs "fix bug at an inconvenient time and get paid less than their usual hourly rate". I can't actually work out why you bothered to bring bailing on a date night into it at all...
- michaelt 2y ago
  I mention that merely to illustrate that our hypothetical $200k developer has good things he could be doing with his limited discretionary time. The time spent fixing a bug for $100 doesn't get magicked out of nowhere - that's time that could be spent meeting friends, doing sports, spending time with family, reading books, creating art, enjoying good food and wine, learning new things, or even sleeping! For a similar concept expressed in a wordier way, read about Maslow's hierarchy of needs [1]. Our hypothetical developer's physiological and safety needs are fully met - and their unmet needs won't be much helped by $100. I avoided this and chose the wording I did because some of Maslow's wording like "self-actualization" and "transcendence" kinda invites confusion IMHO. Far less confusing and questionable, I thought, to merely argue that sex is more fun than software development. But apparently not... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

wccrawford 2y ago

Some people might be receptive to getting $100 for something they spent dozens of hours on, but then others will wonder why they didn't also get $100 for their dozens of hours recently. Others will look at that and calculate how far under minimum wage it was, and start to question if it's worth their time after all. You end up with bad feelings on every side unless you pay market wages, and even then you end up with people questioning if they just took on another full-time job, instead of a hobby. It's really, really hard to add money to the equation and not make things worse.

InsomniacL 2y ago
There's only 10 people since 2024 that have made more than 10 commits to JellyFin. I think if they gave an incentive they would have benefited more so than lost.

illiac786 2y ago

> I find it hard to believe receiving nothing is better for moral than receiving something. Check the ultimatum game for proof that people are definitely able to prefer no money at all. I’m not saying this is what is happening here, but money doesn’t come alone, and overall it might be worse than no money. My point is, money is not everything - sounds really old, but it’s surprisingly true still.