Subject:
|
Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Apr 2000 17:54:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1578 times
|
| |
|
|
As you know, I tend to see *everything* in terms of paying for it, or at least
motivation, at any rate.
I think John raises some good points and I don't have answers, but I do have
some musings.
In lugnet.cad.dev, John VanZwieten writes:
> <snipped plusses>
>
> Minusses:
> 1. Could erode the wonderful "gratis" community spirit that exists here. Is
> it fair for a couple of people to receive compensation for doing certain
> parts, while the authors of the other parts used get nothing?--not to mention
> the effort put in by programmers, which would go uncompensated. The example
> of the Knudsen book is illustrative: the authors of the tread hubs and tread
> were offered recognition, and maybe a free book, while I got nothing for
> authoring the RCX, motor, and sensors. (Not that I'm bitter--I created those
> for the love of the hobby, and so that I could use them. It just seems odd.)
You made those parts for your own reasons, which hopefully were and are good
enough for you at that time and now. We're trying to "influence" the decision
process, that's all.
> 2. How would you decide with whom to "contract" to create a part? First
> person to speak up, or first to finish a mock-up/part?
Not sure. Probably initially guided by first to speak up or first to finish a
mockup (mockups that are close enough are all we need in some cases). As time
went by we'd know who to award to based on past time and quality levels. But
again, it would be influencing, rather than work for hire.
> How do you separate
> an author's contribution from other community members who critique/improve a
> part so that it's ready for submission?
Again, mockups are all we need in some (many?) cases. But my proposal was to
take it farther for the benefit of the community, not our own benefit. So I'm
not sure I'd want to compensate everyone who had something to say about a part,
seems unworkable. Critiquing is something you do because you want to help the
community get better parts.
> Overall, I guess if two people want to contract to get something done, that
> is fine (and I might even be interested, from time to time). I just would
> hope it's done in a way that doesn't erode what has been created here.
Totally agree and that's why I would like to see some discussion, how can we do
this the right way?
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
| The reason why I haven't responded to this thread earlier was the complicated language that kept me from fully understanding what the point is. What I now understand about the guild is: * You are fueled by frustration over the juniorisation of (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
| Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:FsGCEz.42y@lugnet.com... (...) least (...) have (...) Is (...) mention (...) example (...) tread (...) those (...) odd.) (...) good (...) decision (...) a (...) time (...) But (...) a (...) to (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
| Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:FsEvqJ.1pI@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) designing (...) with (...) done (...) "paid" (...) to (...) pay (...) benefit (...) I see both plusses and minuses to such an arrangement: Plusses: 1. (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
