Fwd: [OSGeo-Discuss] Project Sponsorship Proposal (call for feedback)

[Daniel Morissette]

Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> 
> Money would be spent at the discretion of the PSC.  It the case of GDAL, my
> hope is to fund 3-6 month "maintenance contracts" with up and coming 
> software
> developers with a demonstrated interest and aptitude.  We might try to 
> do the
> same for MapServer, though supporting such developers might be hard.  We 
> might
> also consider letting contracts to existing consultants with expertise in
> desired areas (ie. MapGears, DMSG, Howard, you, etc).
> 
> I have to say I'm nervous about the effect having money available for some
> things might have on other areas.  But ultimately most work on mapserver 
> has
> been funded in the past via various mechanisms.  I see this as a way of
> pooling money from interested supporters in a meaningful way to accomplish
> various unglamerous work items, that might otherwise never get taken 
> care of
> by any single contract.
> 

I understand very well that this would be an optional mechanism and 
especially useful to fund stuff that paying clients are unlikely to pay 
for, but I am worried about the impact that this money could have on the 
relationship between the individual members of the PSC. Simply put, I 
find that it may be hard to insure that this money is spent fairly and 
in the best interest of the project. This comment applies to all OSGeo 
project and not only to MapServer.

As I'm sure you realize, the people who are the most likely to be able 
to use this money efficiently are for the most part the voting members 
of the PSC. So we end up with PSC members voting on money allocation for 
themselves, with all the appearence of conflicts of interest and other 
politics and possible tensions that may come out of that. If I vote 
against money going to developer A for something that I do not consider 
worthwhile, then how will they vote next time I make a proposal to get 
some money from the foundation for a something that *I* consider 
worthwhile?

When developers get money from their own clients for enhancements to the 
software or bug fixes, the rest of the PSC has no word on the rates that 
you charge, amount of time you spend, whether the feature is worth the 
money or not, etc. You are only judged by the PSC on the technical 
merits of the RFC that you submit for approval and whether that fits in 
the big picture of MapServer, and that's perfect this way.

When we add foundation money into the mix, then I'll have to be careful 
with my votes and keep in mind that if I turn down too many proposals 
then I risk seeing my own proposals turned down as well. Plus we all 
work for different rates, how do we account for that? Some people make a 
living out of this while others have real jobs and do MapServer stuff 
only on the side and don't seem to care that much whether they get money 
for their work or not. Finally, some people who never had any real 
interest in contributing to MapServer so far may decide to submit 
proposals only because they smelled the money opportunities, which would 
be unfair to those who have invested thousands of hours of volounteer 
time in the project.

Are there examples of other software projects/foundations that work this 
way and that we could look at? I'd be interested to see real life 
examples to find out whether those issues are real or just my imagination.

Daniel
-- 
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/