Subject:
|
Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Apr 2000 14:47:27 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1094 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:FsGCEz.42y@lugnet.com...
> 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?
To finally get back to you on this, I would recommend that you or other Guild
members just post your requests here like anyone else could, but include in
you sig or somewhere the fact that you are a Guild member. Then those who
have followed this debate and are interested in working on your parts for
some consideration can contact you via e-mail to make those arrangements.
Who knows, someone here may decide to do your part just for the heck of it.
This will let you make your needs known, but keep lugnet.cad.dev from
becomming an employment board.
Just don't make any posts like "where the ___ is my part?!" ;-)
-John Van
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
| 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. (...) You made those parts for your own reasons, which (...) (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
|
|
|
|
