The idea here is, that money should not go to software that already exists, but to developers that implement features and fix bugs that are most important. How does a project know if a feature or a certain bug should be worked on? Allow users to put a bounty on Issues. The money is then distributed to those people who actually solved the issue.
This avoids that developers spend their time implementing features that nobody asked for and focusses development on solving issues that people actually care about.
This is kickstarter oriented so, adding a time limit or adding streach goals an be considered
When the issue pot is big, you don't wan't a flimsy algorithm to decide who gets money. Solving an issue can be done through support (no commit available), through code, reviewing the code, a combination of that and something I didn't consider yet. There must be a human intervention possible to control the split.
Who may decide if an issue is solved or not? Normally on github the decision to close an issue is in the eyes of the project owner. This may be a very different opinion that the opinion of the issue committer.
Ly0n
commented
4 years ago
The idea here is, that money should not go to software that already exists, but to developers that implement features and fix bugs that are most important. How does a project know if a feature or a certain bug should be worked on? Allow users to put a bounty on Issues. The money is then distributed to those people who actually solved the issue.
This avoids that developers spend their time implementing features that nobody asked for and focusses development on solving issues that people actually care about.