Re: [talk] suggestion: redesign "sponsoring" page.

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> - on the sponsoring page, have just one disclaimer [1] "There is no
> general LilyPond fund, because it would be too difficult to decide how
> the money should be divided between developers (and because the legal
> stuff would be a chore).  Instead, we ask you to support LilyPond by
> supporting developers working on LilyPond, see below"

I lean towards mentioning the possible investments of working power
first.  Additional helpers lead to additional work being done.  The
effect of money is less direct, and scales less.

We have definitely too few documentation writers, and too few reviewers,
and several translations are seriously lagging behind.  I also seem to
remember that some members of the bug squad have to do duty more than
once per week.

> - split the remainder of the page between "features for hire"
> (one-time bounties) and "continuous support" (giving money to an
> individual without setting what exactly he has to do, just to enable
> him to continue his work - what we do with David now).

I am not sure this distinction is not a bit complicating things.  Yes, I
need to update my section of the page.  I'll propose something tomorrow.

> "gee, better not give them any money, because it seems that it will
> most certainly be wasted; that Kastrup guy may have no ability
> whatsoever,

Well, I said I need to update this.

> and they're so disorganized that they even don't know who's actively
> developing the program at the moment, and the whole thing 'isn't their
> business'..."  i estimate a 80% probability that i wouldn't donate
> *anything* in that situation.
>
> what do you think?  I hope that this would make things clearer while
> not giving anyone any unfair advantage.

I'd say that (within reasonable bounds of correctness and verbosity)
people listed here should be allowed to write up their own case.

-- 
David Kastrup