HEADSUP: ibcs2 and svr4 compat headed for history
phk at phk.freebsd.dk
Tue Jun 29 15:39:43 PDT 2004
In message <40E195AF.4040104 at sympatico.ca>, Vladimir Dyuzhev writes:
>> PHK's project appears to be a success, so maybe you could
>> motivate someone with some financial contribution to
>> freshen up the code and at least put it in a port-maintainable
>> state? Just a suggestion.
> May be, it would be a good idea to create a public voting
> site for FreeBSD, where interested customers/individuals
> might vote for features they need AND offer a money for that?
> PHK's pilot project showed that money are there, people need
> just some more direct way of paying it than buying boxed FreeBSD
I disagree with the first part and agree with the second.
The reason I disagree with the first part is that it would be interpreted
as a lottery under most jurisdictions since sending $20 towards ibcs2 only
gives you a certain chance of ibcs2 improving, but no certainty (until
you buy all the tickets in the lottery).
I know this sounds harsh, but any sort of "tit for tat" should be handled
at the single person level. At the project level all donations should
come with only a minimal ear-marking and if so, ear-marking determined
by project personel, not donor.
What this means is that if some people can agree to donate $N towards
ibcs2 development and find a developer who will do that for $N, then
fine, they're go.
If some entity, possibly a person in the project wants to hunt for
donors based "I want to improve ibcs2", then that is fine too.
The project doesn't handle money and the foundation can not accept
earmarked donations _unless_ they do the earmarking. In other words
they can solicit money for ibcs2 work, but you cannot send them money
for ibcs2 work if they didn't ask for it.
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
More information about the freebsd-current