[Cython] funding (Re: sage.math problems?)
markflorisson88 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 23 14:26:12 CET 2012
On 22 March 2012 21:53, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml at behnel.de> wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw, 22.03.2012 19:39:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> Regarding funding in general, maybe we should just start putting up one or
>>> two of those sexy funding bars on our web site, like the PyPy devs do for
>>> their funded projects. Assuming that goes well, it would also allow us to
>>> put money on dedicated projects by paying basically ourselves for doing
>>> tasks that we won't normally spend our precious spare time on (e.g. because
>>> they appear too large for a weekend), but that we and our users deem
>>> necessary for some reason.
>> While that's a good idea in theory, I'm not sure how many additional
>> hours would be freed up just because we could pay ourselves for it.
> And if more than one person frees hours for a given project, how would we
> distribute the money? And how do we know we can still trust each other when
> it comes to counting the hours? ;)
>> Perhaps it would act primarily as an additional incentive to align our
>> efforts with user request (though there are certainly already
>> non-monetary incentives).
> There sure are, and I'm sure that won't change. We should see it as an
> addition to what we invest voluntarily. No-one's going to pay for code
> cleanup and refactoring, for example, or for tweaks and "having fun at the
> weekend" code and "I hate that being slow" optimisations.
> We are not necessarily talking about large projects here that represent
> person months of value. If I were to decide if I'd start implementing a
> feature that looks like taking me, say, 10 days, and I'm not seriously
> self-motivated in doing it, I won't even start because I know that I'll
> have enough other things to do in the meantime that weigh in equally for
> me. But, when I know I'll be paid for doing it, I'll certainly consider
> shifting my priorities. And even if it takes three months to finish it in
> my spare time, it would still be done in the end, which is much better than
> just staying an open tracker entry forever.
>> monetization of Cython development changes the spirit of things a bit,
>> and while I am a big fan of people being able to make money, or even a
>> living, off of open source development
> I think if that works depends a lot on what you do exactly, who the users
> are and also what you do in order to sell it (and yourself). It doesn't
> work for every project and certainly not for everyone.
>> it complicates things a lot
>> from a legal, financial, and political perspective.
> Yes, I'm seeing that, too. But in any case, before it comes to asking for
> donations for a given feature/project/fix/whatever, one of the first
> questions will be: who can do it? And when? I think that will kill a lot of
> political hassle early enough (although hopefully not the project in
> question ;).
>> The current model of organization X is willing to pay developer Y for
>> feature Z directly seems to work well enough for the moment.
> That would still work. However, a donation based model would allow us to
> lower the barrier. Paying a whole feature may be too much for a single
> (smaller) company, and they would have to know exactly what they want in
> order to ask us to do it for them. If, instead, we put up a list of
> projects we consider worth doing and they can make a donation of, say, 5%
> or 10% of the actual sum and let others pay for the same feature as well,
> they can just use it to show their appreciation for the general gain we
> give them, without desperately needing a given feature themselves. It would
> also allow users to contribute money for "nice to have" features, which is
> otherwise less likely to happen.
>> E.g. with
>> GSoC, the bottleneck is finding good enough students and time to
>> mentor them, not slots (=funding).
> The mentors are not getting paid in a GSoC. So we invest our time by
> guiding the student, and that's regardless of the usability of the outcome.
> Even if there is an outcome, it's not unheard of that the mere overhead of
> cleaning up and integrating the contribution comes close to reimplementing
> it. It doesn't always work out as well as with Dag and Mark.
> I'm not saying GSoCs are bad - we've certainly had a boost of overall
> development power through them. But they are just one way to fund the
> development, and not always the best one.
>> Opening up funding to non-students
>> could help a bit, but IMHO wouldn't change the balance that much (the
>> gainfully employed cost a lot more and have less spare time).
> It's certainly not the right way to attract new developers. But it's a way
> to advance the development.
> cython-devel mailing list
> cython-devel at python.org
This may be OT for this thread, but sas numpy removed at some point
from Jenkins? I'm seeing this for all python versions since Februari
Following tests excluded because of missing dependencies on your system:
More information about the cython-devel