Allow donations for precise bugs

[Maurizio Colucci <seguso forever tin it>]

Dear friends,

I apologize in advance for the cross-post but it seems adequate here, as this 
proposal involves users and developers.


IN BRIEF
--------

Currently, in bugzilla, I can file bugs or propose new features. My idea is 
to allow users to donate money directed towards a *precise* feature or a 
*precise* bug.



IN DETAIL
---------

The idea is that

1. you donate for each feature  *separately*. Donations are per-feature (or 
per-bug).

2. everyone can donate *freely* (or not donate at all).

3. when, and if, the *overall* donation for a given feature reaches a certain 
threshold, that feature is *guaranteed* to be implemented within a given time 
(the time is stated in advance, before donations begin).

4. (optional) as an incentive to donating, you could give the guarantee that, 
if the threshold is *not* reached within X days, his money will be given back 
to the donator, or at least it will be reusable to sponsor another feature.



Many more things must be discussed but, first, please let me clarify the 
important reasons behind this proposal.


THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THIS
--------------------------

Why am I proposing this? The recent article from Eugenia about Gnome ignoring 
their users (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9933) made me think it's 
the right time to propose what I've been thinking for a while.

In the article, Eugenia correctly points out that OSS projects tend to ignore 
the needs of *ordinary* users: currently the OSS model tends to favour the 
needs of *corporate* customers (because corporations such as IBM or Novell 
put the money for those features), and those of *power* users (because they 
program the features they themselves). But the needs of *ordinary* home users 
are not respected as much. They often tend to be ignored.

So Eugenia is right here. But, IMHO, her error is to assume that this lack of 
respect for the need of ordinary users _is the developers' fault_. Instead, I 
think it is the *users* fault; I think users are still not as _responsible_ 
and self-aware to get together and *directly* finance the features they want.

Consumers are not yet a responsible community and they have no awareness of 
themeselves as a power. (I believe this is partly why the economy is 
dominated by corporations.)

I am sure many of us have a small amount money, but no time to contribute 
code. Some of us love OSS so much that we would happily donate some, 
*provided*  we are guaranteed the feature to be implemented if the threshold 
is reached.

THINGS TO CLARIFY
-----------------

Many more things should be discussed:

1. who should define, for each feature, the money threshold and the time? 
(see point 3 above)

2. once the threshold is reached, how do we decide which programmer is to 
take care of the task?


WHAT DOES "GUARANTEE" MEAN?
---------------------------

Now a difficult matter must be discussed. In point 3 above I talked about 
"guarantees" as an incentive to donations.

Suppose the threashold is reached for a given feature: exactly, _to what 
extent_  are you guaranteed the feature will be implemented?   I mean: what 
if the developer *fails* to implement the feature in the given time? After 
all, 100% guarantees do not exist in the real world; that's why collaboration 
contracts exists, stating what happens when one of the parts *fails* to 
provide its service.

I would like someone to expand this topic. Some ideas: if it is not possible 
to guarantee the feature is *implemented*, at least we can guarantee it will 
be *worked on*. We could also set up some rating system, where developers are 
rated according to how well they behaved in the past.

As an extreme measure, we could provide legal contracts between donators and 
implementors! I would not underestimate this possibility.


------

I would like to hear many opinions about that. I am posting a similar 
proposal in KDE's list.

My best wishes to you all,

Maurizio Colucci