I applaud Jeff for trying to think of new ways to fund open source development. Ultimately, I think open source will benefit from a diversity of funding sources

I applaud Jeff for trying to think of new ways to fund open source development. Ultimately, I think open source will benefit from a diversity of funding sources, including those which currently exist (day jobs, corporate benefactors, and service sales) and those which do not yet exist (such as Jeff's sponsorship clearinghouse). There is no reason to think that the status quo is optimal and cannot be improved. There is certainly no reason to think that new ideas for funding open source development ought not even be tried. I am not sure why there seems to be a lot of vague criticism directed at Jeff's idea, without much concrete analysis. The author of this article mentions that Jeff's proposal "more or less works here and there" but at a larger scale there are "too many factors" for it to work. How the heck are you supposed to argue with something that vague? The author just knows that Jeff's idea won't work, but he can't explain why. He implies that we should just trust him because he "gets it", and Jeff doesn't. That implication is the only supporting argument that the author offers. It's not very convincing. He certainly doesn't convince me that Jeff's proposal ought not even be tried. The tone of the conversation seems to be that people find Jeff's idea offensive in some way, rather than unworkable. I hope that Jeff is confident enough to implement his idea despite the naysayers, if only because I think we will all benefit if it does indeed work. Lastly, am I the only one that finds the last paragraph dripping with condescension? Reading it makes me feel a little dirty.