Pay per fix donations (1 Viewer)

[woddog]

Not sure if this has been discussed before, but I have a question for the developers and users of this great freeware software.

I know donating is optional because of the open source nature of the program, which is all good.

But, do you think it a good idea to have a system where if someone donates a certain $, the bugs that affect them, get a higher precedence to fix?

Stress: Bug fixes, no feature requests.

Example:
User A donates 20 Euros, User A really gets bugged by the broken DVD playback (example) and they check it on a page listing bugs when they donate. This donation AND the amount he/she donates determines the priority level the developers devote to the bug.

Basically, the more that is donated, the greater time/resources are spent devoted to fixing the bug.
Say a new donator pushes their bug up 10 points of priority, 10 Euros 10 extra points, 100 Euros 100 points etc

I think it would encourage donations and perhaps more importantly, new donations.

I know I haven't donated yet, I would really like to, and I think this system will make myself and others do the same.

Thoughts?????

Be gentle

 

[elliottmc]

Hi,

I can see where you are coming from, but what you have to understand is two things.

First of all, not everything which is reported as a bug actually is. Maybe a user has configuration problems with their machine, or bad device drivers, tv signal, network connection. Not all of the problems are caused by faults in mediaportal, and by allowing a pay-per-fix, someone who is having difficulties would view this as a mechanism to pay for support. Chances are at that point, the dev team would spend all their time answering support and configuration questions rather than fixing bugs.

Secondly, the team already work extremely hard on MediaPortal. Bug fixes are partly prioritised based on how easy a bug might be to fix, how important it is, and on an individual team member's expertise. It therefore is unlikely that anyone could work any harder, even if they were paid. It is probably best to trust the team to prioritise correctly.

Best wishes,

Mark

 

[dvdfreak]

Have you considered that software that is released without bugs would provide zero income to a developer if you use this system?

And a developer that releases something that totally blows, and is full of bugs, will have a good source of income letting everyone pay for his incompetence.

How about the simple idea of donating for something because you like what the software does for you?

 

[tourettes]

Have you considered that software that is released without bugs would provide zero income to a developer if you use this system?

And a developer that releases something that totally blows, and is full of bugs, will have a good source of income letting everyone pay for his incompetence.

Indeed. But isn't this what Apple is already doing? They release broken OS version and then ask money from the patch releases.

 

[Charly_Brown]

Bugs should be fixed, based on

• Severity and impact on the system
• How many users are "anoyed" by the bug

The fix of a bug should not depend on the amount of money someone spent.

BR

Charly

 

[tourettes]

Bugs should be fixed, based on

• Severity and impact on the system
• How many users are "anoyed" by the bug

And the most important thing that is missing from the list: how much some bug is annoying the developer's wife. After all, nothing else matters.

 

[tourettes]

Actually I see one possibility with the "pay per bug fix" idea. Its not a bad idea to pay for someone outside the normal MP development team to fix a bug and then him/her to provide the patch for the team.

In that model the MP quality wont decrease as developers are adding bugs to gain some money

 

[Paranoid Delusion]

And the most important thing that is missing from the list: how much some bug is annoying the developer's wife. After all, nothing else matters.

LOL, oh so true.

Cheers for that, made my day

 

[wonkyd]

Bugs should be fixed, based on

• Severity and impact on the system
• How many users are "anoyed" by the bug

And the most important thing that is missing from the list: how much some bug is annoying the developer's wife. After all, nothing else matters.

LOL so true!

 

[woddog]

Not all of the problems are caused by faults in mediaportal, and by allowing a pay-per-fix, someone who is having difficulties would view this as a mechanism to pay for support.

The priority system should be used only with issues confirmed in the bug tracker

Have you considered that software that is released without bugs would provide zero income to a developer if you use this system?

And a developer that releases something that totally blows, and is full of bugs, will have a good source of income letting everyone pay for his incompetence.

How about the simple idea of donating for something because you like what the software does for you?

How much paid for software have you seen that has no bugs? My idea is not meant to provide "income" or reward buggy software, it was simply an idea to ancourage new donators and people who do donate to donate more.

QUOTE=Charly_Brown;376791]Bugs should be fixed, based on

• Severity and impact on the system
• How many users are "anoyed" by the bug

The fix of a bug should not depend on the amount of money someone spent.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Maybe the severity of the bug could also have a priority.

Anyway, just an idea that I thought would work. Thanks for the feedback. The paid system isn't meant to stop the free open source nature, it is just intended to improve the software based on the goodwill of the donators. People who don't donate will still benefit from this.

I still think it would be a good idea, not just for Mediaportal but for open source software in general.