Martin, Marcel,
We are in agreement here.
Here is an example of one of the work packages that will be
included in the first round:
With input from the Eclipse PMC, the EMO, and/or
selected members of the community, propose a subset of bugs
related to the Platform UI that would be appropriate to address
from the list found at:
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Platform_UI/Plan/4.5/Planning_Bugs .
The subset should focus specifically on improving the end user
experience for the broader Java developer community. Payment for
development deliverables is based on actual hours for accepted
committed patches.
And here is a second example:
Reviewing and (when appropriate) committing
platform.ui patches and contributions. Payment for review of
platform.ui patches and contributions is based on the actual
hours spent during the review and commit.
Once we get FEEP up and running, adding a bug bounty mechanism
will be looked at as well.
I hope that puts your minds at ease.
On 27/09/2015 7:35 PM, Marcel Bruch wrote:
Hi Mike,
I second Martin’s perception of a potentially
heavy-weight process. For some kind of problems analyzing it
upfront to make a reasonable estimate is time consuming. Then,
if more than one contractor can bid on an work item, it’s an
investment that may not pay out. I anticipate that not many
individuals or companies will take that burden. How many
companies bid for MPC extensions in the past?
In addition, some tasks should rather be a
commitment to invest a certain amount of time and open-ended
list of items to complete rather than a fixed price IMO. For
example, it would be worth to have a dedicate resource that
"just fixes bugs 2 days a week“. I don’t know if this model fits
FEEP, though.
Cheers,
Marcel
Hey!
I really like the overall idea behind this (EF spending
some money to fund development), so I strongly support
that effort.
The described process looks sound and well thought-out.
However, it feels to me a bit heavyweight and tends
towards old-fashioned contractor work. The process of
sizing the individual items, putting a price tag on
them, start some bidding, etc, sounds like a lot of work
to get someone to work on those items. But maybe this
isn’t as much overhead in practice as it sounds from the
description…
I feel like I would prefer something more lightweight
and trust-based, something like contract a budget of
time from good people that we know/trust, that are
committers in that area, etc, and use a lightweight
agile approach to feed them with work items during that
contracted period of time. Would keep the budget rock
solid and clear upfront and guarantee at the same time
that we get the most and best out of this money.
Just my 2 cents…
Cheers,
-Martin
Am 23.09.2015 um 20:39
schrieb Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
All,
As has been discussed recently, we are moving forward
with funding platform development. We've created a
draft document describing an open and transparent
process for prioritizing and funding work. The HTML
document is live on the site, marked as draft, and we
would like your feedback.
After any revisions we will announce it for public
review and comment. Hopefully by the end of the week.
Please review at: https://www.eclipse.org/contribute/dev_program.php
Thanks!
|
