Re: Open Source Developer Exchange (Economics)

 >
 >
 >The alternative it to allow the sponsor to dictate the project scope, but
 >in traditional Open Source development the developers dictate features,
 >scope  and (most importantly) deadlines (if any). Introduce a controlling
 >sponsor into  the situation and the developer is then locked into an
 >agreement and obliged  to return deliverables in exchange for financial
 >compensation.
 >

As someone who has paid others to develop software, I will tell you that
I expect agreed-upon features delivered by a set date for a set amount
of money. This is true no matter what license is used for the software.
Many years ago I contracted with someone to write a dispatch system for
a cab company. We needed this system badly. This was in the 80s, and
Open Source was unheard of. He was too much of a dilletante to just
produce what we needed. He kept talking about features we neither needed
nor wanted. Meanwhile, we had a contract with the Baltimore City Schools
for handicapped transportation that required a computerized dispatch
system. In the end a couple of us modified a stock database program to
do what was needed.

Now, I *loathe* programming. I find it the most mind-numbing activity
imaginable, and I am certainly not good at it. But the system got up and
running by deadline, and (much modified since) is still in use today.
(And still happily running on DOS, I might add.)

 >This is a problem that SourceXchange had, the relationship with the
 >sponsor of the project and both sides meeting their obligations. For the
 >developer, they have a commitment to meet milestones and produce working
 >software, for the sponsor, they have an obligation to pay for the
 >development at each milestone. This is not the  traditional Open Source
 >development methodology, the only Open Source part of this  procedure is
 >the license that the end code is released under.
 >

Well, yes and no. If the traditional Open Source development method
relies on inspiration and people who are itching and scratching instead
of conforming to deadlines and the rest of that silly capitalist
nonsense, then Open Source development has no place in the business
world. But if the license is what makes something Open Source, then a
programmer who expects to make money developing Open Source (or
proprietary) software had better be prepared to adhere to a schedule.

Same for writers. You take the assignment, you promise to have it in by
X date, you'd better come through.

I gave an assignment to a writer six weeks ago -- a story about citizens
in Florida trying to get all voting machine software in the state open
sourced. He said he'd have it to me within a week. Now, I want that
story. I'll end up writing it myself, won't I? And that writer won't get
another assignment from me.

Now, I am basically a nice guy, kind to dogs and small children and all
that, but when it comes to BIDNESS I bust my butt to meet commitments,
and I expect people working with me to do the same. Back in the 19th
century (and prior)  Lloyd's sailing ship port announcements typically
said, "sailing toward [destination]." We are now in the airline age, and
things don't work like that, Showing up is 80% of success, and all that.
We have digital clocks that are accurate to tiny fractions of a second.
Deadlines are important.

I mean, Pekka's a great guy, but as someone else pointed out, the
"hacker ethic" assumes the basic needs are met before the fun part kicks
in.

Note that this is the free software *business* list, not the free
software "let's do some cool stuff in our spare time" list.

Business = meeting obligations on both sides of the deal. I give you an
agreed-upon  product or service, you give me an agreed-upon amount of
money (or something) in return. An exchange/brokerage must  make sure
both parties fulfill their parts of the bargain to be effective. This is
not easy to do, but if it was easy we'd just hire Richard Wallace to
make a specialized Alicebot to do it, then  (if Wallace is involved)
we'd all go share a big, fat joint.

- Robin
(wearing "for amusement purposes only" hat today)