Re: [boost] review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re: [rfc] rcpp)
Mathias Gaunard writes:
Currently there are a lot of libraries to review, but no review managers.
That means that the user community don't want to spend a little bit of their time to manage a review.
In addition, the last review didn't had too much of reviewers (I'm also concerned by this point)
So you can see, indeed, that this is fairly concerning.
I think this may be due to economic changes. When Boost was getting started the economy was better than today. I think Boost should work on turning traffic on it's pages into advertising revenue. That money could be used to help those who want to be involved in the project. Giving a review manager $200 for 40+ hours of work only makes sense. -- Brian Wood Ebenezer Enterprises http://webEbenezer.net (651) 251-9384
On 24 February 2010 12:08, Brian Wood <woodbrian77@gmail.com> wrote:
I think Boost should work on turning traffic on it's pages into advertising revenue.
Hmmmm... If I can get a nickel for each message I approve or reject as moderator of a Boost mailing list, .... PROFIT! :-) More seriously, no. Once you start collecting money, you become a business. You start needing things like accountants and lawyers. Who will pay for that? If you are paying people for work performed, you may have to fill out IRS paperwork (if you are US based). Who is going to do that? Are we now an entity that can easily be sued?
That money could be used to help those who want to be involved in the project. Giving a review manager $200 for 40+ hours of work only makes sense.
Then comes the "which jobs do we pay for?". If a reviewer spends 80 hours doing a detailed review, should we pay them too? What about all the people who tirelessly work on getting a release out the door every quarter? Why should they work "for free" if other people are getting paid? If we don't make enough money from web advertising, you can't just not pay the review managers. Who will make up the deficit? Etc., etc. I understand the sentiment behind paying an honorarium to encourage people to do work, but I just don't see how it is practical. -- Nevin Liber <mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com> (847) 691-1404
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nevin Liber" <nevin@eviloverlord.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [boost] review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re:[rfc] rcpp)
On 24 February 2010 12:08, Brian Wood <woodbrian77@gmail.com> wrote:
I think Boost should work on turning traffic on it's pages into advertising revenue.
Hmmmm... If I can get a nickel for each message I approve or reject as moderator of a Boost mailing list, .... PROFIT! :-)
More seriously, no. Once you start collecting money, you become a business. You start needing things like accountants and lawyers. Who will pay for that? If you are paying people for work performed, you may have to fill out IRS paperwork (if you are US based). Who is going to do that? Are we now an entity that can easily be sued?
That money could be used to help those who want to be involved in the project. Giving a review manager $200 for 40+ hours of work only makes sense.
Then comes the "which jobs do we pay for?". If a reviewer spends 80 hours doing a detailed review, should we pay them too? What about all the people who tirelessly work on getting a release out the door every quarter? Why should they work "for free" if other people are getting paid? If we don't make enough money from web advertising, you can't just not pay the review managers. Who will make up the deficit? Etc., etc.
I understand the sentiment behind paying an honorarium to encourage people to do work, but I just don't see how it is practical.
I agre completly with Nevin. Please, No Money! Vicente
On 02/25/2010 11:56 AM, Nevin Liber wrote:
Then comes the "which jobs do we pay for?". If a reviewer spends 80 hours doing a detailed review, should we pay them too? What about all the people who tirelessly work on getting a release out the door every quarter? Why should they work "for free" if other people are getting paid? If we don't make enough money from web advertising, you can't just not pay the review managers. Who will make up the deficit? Etc., etc.
I understand the sentiment behind paying an honorarium to encourage people to do work, but I just don't see how it is practical.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Boostpro [1] could be that financial backend behind these kind of payments. Hence that organization would decide which areas of Boost needed active improvement in order to pay for it. All in all, I'm not advocating for the payment-based approach. I just understand that the current scheme doesn't work well and I don't think it will change by itself. [1] http://www.boostpro.com/
On 25 February 2010 14:36, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com>wrote:
On 02/25/2010 11:56 AM, Nevin Liber wrote:
Then comes the "which jobs do we pay for?". If a reviewer spends 80 hours doing a detailed review, should we pay them too? What about all the people who tirelessly work on getting a release out the door every quarter? Why should they work "for free" if other people are getting paid? If we don't make enough money from web advertising, you can't just not pay the review managers. Who will make up the deficit? Etc., etc.
I understand the sentiment behind paying an honorarium to encourage people to do work, but I just don't see how it is practical.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Boostpro [1] could be that financial backend behind these kind of payments. Hence that organization would decide which areas of Boost needed active improvement in order to pay for it.
This is an interesting topic, so I'll just jump right in with another suggestion to the mix. You could allow companies that have an employee that do a 'substantial' (rated, by say boostpro) amount of work for boost, to keep their logo on boost.org primary page. A SupportedBy list. The companies already have the organization for payment and the rest, the choice they need to make is weather one (or more) of their employee(s) are allowed to dedicate say 10% of their paid time for boost support (in whatever form they're interested in and has knowledge about, not necessarily answering mails on the users' mail list). Different companies are interested in different parts, and it's not unlikely that some companies can benefit by more actively taking part in maintaining those parts of boost that their business depends on to a grater extent. Maybe they already do it, but the guy spending the effort is hiding his time in bigger projects. The payment from boost is just the logo spot, the money is from the companies. Instead of asking boostpro "Can I have X $ for the review", I could go to my boss and ask for his permission to spend X hours on a review during working time. This was just an example with the review, maybe not even a good one since I've not written many myself, but I hope I made my point =) Cheers,
participants (5)
-
Andrey Semashev -
Brian Wood -
Christian Holmquist -
Nevin Liber -
vicente.botet