Proposal for donation link in Thunderbird 31
131 views
Skip to first unread message
Kent James
Nov 18, 2013, 4:49:29 PM11/18/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org, Kent James
(This is a resend after earlier copies seemed to fail)
As many of you know, I am a firm believer that Thunderbird needs sources
of income to ensure its future.
I would like to propose that for Thunderbird 31, we add a donation user
interface and mechanism that requests an annual donation of $10 from
users. This should be something that appears prominently once after the
upgrade, and users have a choice to act/postpone/or ignore (until next
major release).
My own recent experience with ExQuilla is that there are plenty of users
who are quite happy to pay $10 per year for email functionality. I
believe that we could design a tasteful donation mechanism to capture
this willingness from users that would be acceptable to the vast
majority of users, and generate substantial income. I would guess that
Thunderbird would earn several hundred thousand dollars per year this way.
The question will arise, what do we need income for? That deserves a
separate thread, but here are some quick comments on that.
1) I don't think that we can assume that Mozilla will continue to
subsidize Thunderbird for the foreseeable future, as the nature of
Thunderbird does not mesh with their core mission of making everything
an HTML app. Thunderbird operations takes substantial funds to support.
2) There are many ways that we could provide more substantial support to
core contributors that are short of providing income for living. That
would include providing equipment, or travel expenses to conferences.
3) I believe that the major Thunderbird contributors should get together
at least annually for an event that is part work and part play.
4) Certain important but non-development functions are difficult to
support with volunteers. There might be a role for contractors in some
of those areas, if there was income available.
5) I of course am not opposed to finding mechanisms for core developers
to earn a living at their Thunderbird work, should the project learn to
develop enough income that such a mechanism was ever possible. But we
are far from that now.
Could I have some comments on this?
:rkent
_______________________________________________
tb-planning mailing list
tb-pl...@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning
As many of you know, I am a firm believer that Thunderbird needs sources
of income to ensure its future.
I would like to propose that for Thunderbird 31, we add a donation user
interface and mechanism that requests an annual donation of $10 from
users. This should be something that appears prominently once after the
upgrade, and users have a choice to act/postpone/or ignore (until next
major release).
My own recent experience with ExQuilla is that there are plenty of users
who are quite happy to pay $10 per year for email functionality. I
believe that we could design a tasteful donation mechanism to capture
this willingness from users that would be acceptable to the vast
majority of users, and generate substantial income. I would guess that
Thunderbird would earn several hundred thousand dollars per year this way.
The question will arise, what do we need income for? That deserves a
separate thread, but here are some quick comments on that.
1) I don't think that we can assume that Mozilla will continue to
subsidize Thunderbird for the foreseeable future, as the nature of
Thunderbird does not mesh with their core mission of making everything
an HTML app. Thunderbird operations takes substantial funds to support.
2) There are many ways that we could provide more substantial support to
core contributors that are short of providing income for living. That
would include providing equipment, or travel expenses to conferences.
3) I believe that the major Thunderbird contributors should get together
at least annually for an event that is part work and part play.
4) Certain important but non-development functions are difficult to
support with volunteers. There might be a role for contractors in some
of those areas, if there was income available.
5) I of course am not opposed to finding mechanisms for core developers
to earn a living at their Thunderbird work, should the project learn to
develop enough income that such a mechanism was ever possible. But we
are far from that now.
Could I have some comments on this?
:rkent
_______________________________________________
tb-planning mailing list
tb-pl...@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning
Tanstaafl
Nov 18, 2013, 4:57:50 PM11/18/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
I for one would be more than happy to donate, probably more than $10 too...
One thing though... what did you have in mind as far as accountability
(of the uses the money is put to) goes?
In other words, will *everything* that the money is used for be made
public knowledge? You know, an annual 'accounting', showing all of the
dollars collected, and where it all went?
If so, and this is made formal/official policy, then I'm all for it.
One thing though... what did you have in mind as far as accountability
(of the uses the money is put to) goes?
In other words, will *everything* that the money is used for be made
public knowledge? You know, an annual 'accounting', showing all of the
dollars collected, and where it all went?
If so, and this is made formal/official policy, then I'm all for it.
Kent James
Nov 18, 2013, 5:29:15 PM11/18/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
There are of course many issues that would need to be dealt with to make
this work, and management of the funds is certainly one of them. But I
think that the main point of this thread should be "do you support using
an in-app donation link as a mechanism to raise income for Thunderbird,
assuming that we can setup adequate mechanisms to manage those funds".
That is, I would like people to agree simply that 1) they believe
raising income is important, and 2) doing so through an in-app donation
link is an acceptable method to do so.
But concerning accountability, a year ago I tried to propose a
management council for Thunderbird. I would propose the same thing
again. Actually part of my motivation for raising the donation issue is
that I think that the Thunderbird community needs to develop capacity
for self-management, which is sorely lacking at the moment. During the
council discussions last year, the official position seemed to be that
the existing management structure, using the module owners group as the
de facto management team, was working well. Although it is possible to
use the module system to organize that management team, I don't think
that has been done effectively in the past. Having donations income will
force us to deal with the issue, as you point out. I would certainly
strongly oppose having the donation income buried within the existing
Thunderbird accounts which have been publicly opaque.
:rkent
this work, and management of the funds is certainly one of them. But I
think that the main point of this thread should be "do you support using
an in-app donation link as a mechanism to raise income for Thunderbird,
assuming that we can setup adequate mechanisms to manage those funds".
That is, I would like people to agree simply that 1) they believe
raising income is important, and 2) doing so through an in-app donation
link is an acceptable method to do so.
But concerning accountability, a year ago I tried to propose a
management council for Thunderbird. I would propose the same thing
again. Actually part of my motivation for raising the donation issue is
that I think that the Thunderbird community needs to develop capacity
for self-management, which is sorely lacking at the moment. During the
council discussions last year, the official position seemed to be that
the existing management structure, using the module owners group as the
de facto management team, was working well. Although it is possible to
use the module system to organize that management team, I don't think
that has been done effectively in the past. Having donations income will
force us to deal with the issue, as you point out. I would certainly
strongly oppose having the donation income buried within the existing
Thunderbird accounts which have been publicly opaque.
:rkent
Ludovic Hirlimann
Nov 19, 2013, 6:25:18 AM11/19/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
On 18/11/2013 22:49, Kent James wrote:
> (This is a resend after earlier copies seemed to fail)
>
> As many of you know, I am a firm believer that Thunderbird needs sources
> of income to ensure its future.
>
> I would like to propose that for Thunderbird 31, we add a donation user
> interface and mechanism that requests an annual donation of $10 from
> users. This should be something that appears prominently once after the
> upgrade, and users have a choice to act/postpone/or ignore (until next
> major release).
>
> My own recent experience with ExQuilla is that there are plenty of users
> who are quite happy to pay $10 per year for email functionality. I
> believe that we could design a tasteful donation mechanism to capture
> this willingness from users that would be acceptable to the vast
> majority of users, and generate substantial income. I would guess that
> Thunderbird would earn several hundred thousand dollars per year this way.
I like the idea - Getting mor emoney would be a better way to go forward.
> (This is a resend after earlier copies seemed to fail)
>
> As many of you know, I am a firm believer that Thunderbird needs sources
> of income to ensure its future.
>
> I would like to propose that for Thunderbird 31, we add a donation user
> interface and mechanism that requests an annual donation of $10 from
> users. This should be something that appears prominently once after the
> upgrade, and users have a choice to act/postpone/or ignore (until next
> major release).
>
> My own recent experience with ExQuilla is that there are plenty of users
> who are quite happy to pay $10 per year for email functionality. I
> believe that we could design a tasteful donation mechanism to capture
> this willingness from users that would be acceptable to the vast
> majority of users, and generate substantial income. I would guess that
> Thunderbird would earn several hundred thousand dollars per year this way.
> 2) There are many ways that we could provide more substantial support to
> core contributors that are short of providing income for living. That
> would include providing equipment, or travel expenses to conferences.
Yeah some areas really need long time work that none of the current
> core contributors that are short of providing income for living. That
> would include providing equipment, or travel expenses to conferences.
contributors can tackle (read perf here).
> 3) I believe that the major Thunderbird contributors should get together
> at least annually for an event that is part work and part play.
I'm sorry that I've missed the mini-summit in Toronto, have I know that
> at least annually for an event that is part work and part play.
I would have of course planned my mozSummit in Toronto. I believe a
meeting should be held once a year at least. We still have funds and we
could use these funds to organize one in 2014 (stopping here before I
become offtopic).
>
> 4) Certain important but non-development functions are difficult to
> support with volunteers. There might be a role for contractors in some
> of those areas, if there was income available.
>
> 5) I of course am not opposed to finding mechanisms for core developers
> to earn a living at their Thunderbird work, should the project learn to
> develop enough income that such a mechanism was ever possible. But we
> are far from that now.
>
> Could I have some comments on this?
>
++ ++ <3 but that's no comment that's constructive.
> 4) Certain important but non-development functions are difficult to
> support with volunteers. There might be a role for contractors in some
> of those areas, if there was income available.
>
> 5) I of course am not opposed to finding mechanisms for core developers
> to earn a living at their Thunderbird work, should the project learn to
> develop enough income that such a mechanism was ever possible. But we
> are far from that now.
>
> Could I have some comments on this?
>
I more than welcome that. I have questions thought ? Currently the
model used to drive Thunderbird is module owners right ? How does that
fit with marketing/finances etc .... ?
Ludo
--
[:Usul] SRE Team at Mozilla
QA Lead fof Thunderbird
http://sietch-tabr.tumblr.com/
acel...@atlas.sk
Nov 19, 2013, 6:57:43 AM11/19/13
to tb-planning
______________________________________________________________
> Od: Ludovic Hirlimann <lhirl...@mozilla.com>
> Komu: <tb-pl...@mozilla.org>
> Dátum: 19.11.2013 12:42
> Predmet: Re: Proposal for donation link in Thunderbird 31
>
> Od: Ludovic Hirlimann <lhirl...@mozilla.com>
> Komu: <tb-pl...@mozilla.org>
> Dátum: 19.11.2013 12:42
> Predmet: Re: Proposal for donation link in Thunderbird 31
>
>I more than welcome that. I have questions thought ? Currently the
>model used to drive Thunderbird is module owners right ? How does that
>fit with marketing/finances etc .... ?
>
If we do not want to add all this to the Product owner (now standard8 alone) we could create a Financial/marketing module, that would not be based on code, but could distribute funds to other modules or to the global meetings.
"Thomas Düllmann (tb-pl)"
Nov 19, 2013, 7:07:28 AM11/19/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org, Kent James
I'm 100% in support of Kent
James' proposals wrt funding & management to the detail (and
I've often perceived rkent very much as a voice of reason in TB).
On 18.11.2013 22:49, Kent James wrote:
(This is a resend after earlier copies seemed to fail)
As many of you know, I am a firm believer that Thunderbird needs sources
of income to ensure its future.
+1
2) There are many ways that we could provide more substantial support to
core contributors that are short of providing income for living. That
would include providing equipment, or travel expenses to conferences.
+1. Being one of TB's main bug triagers and allround contributor
since 2007, I am one of these "core contributors that are short of
providing income for living". More specifically, I do not have
formal employment, and the thousands of volunteer working hours I
have invested into TB QA and UX have probably contributed to
persisting that situation. So far I couldn't stop because I love
TB too much and I think it still has great potential if we improve
along the lines of rkent's proposals for funding and management.
However, I have more than once considered abandoning my volunteer
work for TB entirely because I realized I'm effectively doing the
work of a professional but without payment, which is not
sustainable. rkent's proposal has the potential to address that
problem for me and others, to the benefit of TB.
I personally could do a lot more and be more effective if there was funding both for the QA and UX work I do and for others to actually *fix* those identified bugs and RFEs that we are currently for the major part just administrating in our records, much to the permanent frustration of our user base (think of 11,500 open bugs and RFEs in TB & MailNews Core - more than bugzilla can display [1] -, of which 7000 in TB [2] and 4500 in MailNews Core [3]). There has been a fatal pattern for years that user input has been not sufficiently understood, neglected, even ignored and not consolidated enough in the bug database and on getsatisfaction. Worse, even if acknowledged and identified as a problem or potential for improvement, such user input has often never been acted upon for years, even a decade in many cases, so we continue getting duplicate reports all the way.
From what I've seen in TB QA and UX since 2007, the biggest frustration is this: It is very clear to me that one of the main reasons why Thunderbird has struggled for years and somewhat failed to take off as expected and fly high is a permanent shortage of funding/manpower from Mozilla even before they officially defunded the project. How could you possibly handle 11,000 bugs with only around 10 employees? Another main problem, and obviously linked to insufficient funding/manpower, is TB's failure to manage and address user input from bugs and RFEs in a focused, systematic and timely way, which also involves problems of project management (in line with rkent's analyis). Note how this interacts in a self-fulfilling prophecy / vicious circle kind of way: insufficient funding & management -> product shortcomings -> product loses market share -> less funding -> and back to square one in the downward spiral.
I can only guess how many millions of existing and potential users TB has lost or not gained as a result of this. Mozilla's claim in excuse of defunding [0] that TB users are probably mostly happy with the status quo of the product /as-is/ is one of the biggest myths I've ever heard, given those 11.500 bugs and RFEs on record and user feedback seen on getsatisfaction and elsewhere (among them, 3000 recorded proposals for enhancement [6]). The other myth being "on-going security and stability" [0] (think of 300 Crash bugs [4], 200 dataloss bugs [5] and more "datalossy" and unconfirmed/unflagged, plus potentially security bugs which I can't access...).
On the other hand, with just a fraction of the manpower and investment that's going into FF and FF OS, TB could be significantly better and in a better market position than it is now. With some funding and better coordination, I still see very great potential for the improvement of TB.
So yes, rkent's initiative sounds great and promising.
I personally could do a lot more and be more effective if there was funding both for the QA and UX work I do and for others to actually *fix* those identified bugs and RFEs that we are currently for the major part just administrating in our records, much to the permanent frustration of our user base (think of 11,500 open bugs and RFEs in TB & MailNews Core - more than bugzilla can display [1] -, of which 7000 in TB [2] and 4500 in MailNews Core [3]). There has been a fatal pattern for years that user input has been not sufficiently understood, neglected, even ignored and not consolidated enough in the bug database and on getsatisfaction. Worse, even if acknowledged and identified as a problem or potential for improvement, such user input has often never been acted upon for years, even a decade in many cases, so we continue getting duplicate reports all the way.
From what I've seen in TB QA and UX since 2007, the biggest frustration is this: It is very clear to me that one of the main reasons why Thunderbird has struggled for years and somewhat failed to take off as expected and fly high is a permanent shortage of funding/manpower from Mozilla even before they officially defunded the project. How could you possibly handle 11,000 bugs with only around 10 employees? Another main problem, and obviously linked to insufficient funding/manpower, is TB's failure to manage and address user input from bugs and RFEs in a focused, systematic and timely way, which also involves problems of project management (in line with rkent's analyis). Note how this interacts in a self-fulfilling prophecy / vicious circle kind of way: insufficient funding & management -> product shortcomings -> product loses market share -> less funding -> and back to square one in the downward spiral.
I can only guess how many millions of existing and potential users TB has lost or not gained as a result of this. Mozilla's claim in excuse of defunding [0] that TB users are probably mostly happy with the status quo of the product /as-is/ is one of the biggest myths I've ever heard, given those 11.500 bugs and RFEs on record and user feedback seen on getsatisfaction and elsewhere (among them, 3000 recorded proposals for enhancement [6]). The other myth being "on-going security and stability" [0] (think of 300 Crash bugs [4], 200 dataloss bugs [5] and more "datalossy" and unconfirmed/unflagged, plus potentially security bugs which I can't access...).
On the other hand, with just a fraction of the manpower and investment that's going into FF and FF OS, TB could be significantly better and in a better market position than it is now. With some funding and better coordination, I still see very great potential for the improvement of TB.
So yes, rkent's initiative sounds great and promising.
3) I believe that the major Thunderbird contributors should get together
at least annually for an event that is part work and part play.
+1
4) Certain important but non-development functions are difficult to
support with volunteers. There might be a role for contractors in some
of those areas, if there was income available.
+1
5) I of course am not opposed to finding mechanisms for core developers
to earn a living at their Thunderbird work, should the project learn to
develop enough income that such a mechanism was ever possible. But we
are far from that now.
+1
Could I have some comments on this?
:rkent
Kent James, thank you for this initiative.
Thomas
[0] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird/New_Release_and_Governance_Model
[1] TB & MailNews Core Bugs & RFEs (11500 bugs, capped at 10000 which is bugzilla's list display limit)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=product&field0-0-1=product&list_id=8620578&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=substring&type0-0-1=substring&value0-0-0=Thunderbird&value0-0-1=MailNews&order=bug_id%2Cbug_id&limit=0
[2] TB Bugs & RFEs (7000 bugs)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=product&list_id=8620601&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=substring&value0-0-0=Thunderbird&order=bug_id%2Cbug_id&limit=0
[3] MailNews Core Bugs & RFEs (4500 bugs)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=product&list_id=8620675&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=substring&value0-0-0=MailNews&order=bug_id%2Cbug_id&limit=0
[4] TB & MailNews Core Crash bugs (300 bugs)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=product%3A%22MailNews%20Core%22%2CThunderbird%20keyword%3Acrash&list_id=8620965
[5] TB & MailNews Core dataloss bugs (200 bugs)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=product%3AThunderbird%20keyword%3Adataloss&list_id=8620503
[6] TB & MailNews Core RFEs (3000 proposed enhancements)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=product&field0-0-1=product&field1-0-0=bug_severity&list_id=8620865&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=substring&type0-0-1=substring&type1-0-0=substring&value0-0-0=MailNews%20Core&value0-0-1=Thunderbird&value1-0-0=enhancement&order=bug_id&limit=0
Thomas
[0] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird/New_Release_and_Governance_Model
We have come to the conclusion that continued innovation on Thunderbird is not a priority for Mozilla and that the most critical needs for the product are on-going security and stability. In fact, it is quite possible that Thunderbird is already pretty much what its users want and there is not a high demand for innovation in this field."Pretty much what its users want" !? Have a close look:
[1] TB & MailNews Core Bugs & RFEs (11500 bugs, capped at 10000 which is bugzilla's list display limit)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=product&field0-0-1=product&list_id=8620578&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=substring&type0-0-1=substring&value0-0-0=Thunderbird&value0-0-1=MailNews&order=bug_id%2Cbug_id&limit=0
[2] TB Bugs & RFEs (7000 bugs)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=product&list_id=8620601&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=substring&value0-0-0=Thunderbird&order=bug_id%2Cbug_id&limit=0
[3] MailNews Core Bugs & RFEs (4500 bugs)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=product&list_id=8620675&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=substring&value0-0-0=MailNews&order=bug_id%2Cbug_id&limit=0
[4] TB & MailNews Core Crash bugs (300 bugs)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=product%3A%22MailNews%20Core%22%2CThunderbird%20keyword%3Acrash&list_id=8620965
[5] TB & MailNews Core dataloss bugs (200 bugs)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=product%3AThunderbird%20keyword%3Adataloss&list_id=8620503
[6] TB & MailNews Core RFEs (3000 proposed enhancements)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=product&field0-0-1=product&field1-0-0=bug_severity&list_id=8620865&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=substring&type0-0-1=substring&type1-0-0=substring&value0-0-0=MailNews%20Core&value0-0-1=Thunderbird&value1-0-0=enhancement&order=bug_id&limit=0
Axel Grude (Axel)
Nov 19, 2013, 4:52:44 AM11/19/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
On 18/11/2013 21:49, Kent James
wrote:
(This is a resend after earlier copies seemed to fail) As many of you know, I am a firm believer that Thunderbird needs sources of income to ensure its future. I would like to propose that for Thunderbird 31, we add a donation user interface and mechanism that requests an annual donation of $10 from users. This should be something that appears prominently once after the upgrade, and users have a choice to act/postpone/or ignore (until next major release).
I am definitely for this, and would further propose a yearly
repetition (or whenever majorVer changes, whatever comes first).
One tricky point: Also, these donations should probably (or at least initially) be framed in a way to not weaken the non-profit status of mozilla.org projects - I would like some more opinions on this. My understanding is that if Tb was openly "for-profit" Mozilla would have a problem with hosting it. In any case, hold on to the brand name (Thunderbird).
We definitely should point out these points to our users:
1) Mozilla doesn't support Thunderbird with full-time development effort
2) However Mozilla still is interested in hosting and helping with security issues
3) Most [all?] major innovation, and a lot of the bugfixes [show count of fixes since last major Version] have been made by contributors
4) point out that Thunderbird is one of the few mail clients that supports a persistent tabbed interface (remembers tabs) plus Addons support, and in this respect is on par with Firefox.
5) Show the users that more innovation is necessary, and planned. E.g. [point to 3 examples.
Obviously also offer one-time donation (with >10$ values). Details to be discussed.
One tricky point: Also, these donations should probably (or at least initially) be framed in a way to not weaken the non-profit status of mozilla.org projects - I would like some more opinions on this. My understanding is that if Tb was openly "for-profit" Mozilla would have a problem with hosting it. In any case, hold on to the brand name (Thunderbird).
We definitely should point out these points to our users:
1) Mozilla doesn't support Thunderbird with full-time development effort
2) However Mozilla still is interested in hosting and helping with security issues
3) Most [all?] major innovation, and a lot of the bugfixes [show count of fixes since last major Version] have been made by contributors
4) point out that Thunderbird is one of the few mail clients that supports a persistent tabbed interface (remembers tabs) plus Addons support, and in this respect is on par with Firefox.
5) Show the users that more innovation is necessary, and planned. E.g. [point to 3 examples.
Obviously also offer one-time donation (with >10$ values). Details to be discussed.
My own recent experience with ExQuilla is that there are plenty of users who are quite happy to pay $10 per year for email functionality. I believe that we could design a tasteful donation mechanism to capture this willingness from users that would be acceptable to the vast majority of users, and generate substantial income. I would guess that Thunderbird would earn several hundred thousand dollars per year this way.
IMO a subscription service would be a great move. I would hope
we could piggyback Addons subscriptions at a later stage.
The question will arise, what do we need income for? That deserves a separate thread, but here are some quick comments on that.
1) I think Lightning development should benefit from the money
taken in as it is now part of the mail client(?). Other core
Addons that are bundled during installation (CompactHeader?)
possibly could as well.
1) I don't think that we can assume that Mozilla will continue to subsidize Thunderbird for the foreseeable future, as the nature of Thunderbird does not mesh with their core mission of making everything an HTML app. Thunderbird operations takes substantial funds to support. 2) There are many ways that we could provide more substantial support to core contributors that are short of providing income for living. That would include providing equipment, or travel expenses to conferences. 3) I believe that the major Thunderbird contributors should get together at least annually for an event that is part work and part play.
+1 !
4) Certain important but non-development functions are difficult to support with volunteers. There might be a role for contractors in some of those areas, if there was income available. 5) I of course am not opposed to finding mechanisms for core developers to earn a living at their Thunderbird work, should the project learn to develop enough income that such a mechanism was ever possible. But we are far from that now.
+1, but I agree early days.
Vincent
Nov 19, 2013, 4:29:08 AM11/19/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Hi all,
I would also be happy to donate and I think that many users would be too. In fact, I believe that Thunderbird will just slowly disappear without income that would allow important developments (make maildir the default, new address book, compose in a tab,...).
We should also keep in mind the Geary experience (and why they fails). I think Thunderbird can success where Geary fails, because it is a lot more famous that Geary.I would also be happy to donate and I think that many users would be too. In fact, I believe that Thunderbird will just slowly disappear without income that would allow important developments (make maildir the default, new address book, compose in a tab,...).
--
Vincent (caméléon)
Vincent (caméléon)
JoeS
Nov 18, 2013, 6:01:53 PM11/18/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
On 11/18/2013 4:49 PM, Kent James wrote:
> (This is a resend after earlier copies seemed to fail)
>
> As many of you know, I am a firm believer that Thunderbird needs sources
> of income to ensure its future.
> I would like to propose that for Thunderbird 31, we add a donation user
> interface and mechanism that requests an annual donation of $10 from
> users. This should be something that appears prominently once after the
> upgrade, and users have a choice to act/postpone/or ignore (until next
> major release).
If you ask for an annual donation, that implies administrative costs,
> interface and mechanism that requests an annual donation of $10 from
> users. This should be something that appears prominently once after the
> upgrade, and users have a choice to act/postpone/or ignore (until next
> major release).
just to manage that.
Might be better to ask for email addys and a polite request sent
annually , otherwise
a built in mechanism might be considered a nag.
Another idea as an incentive, would be to redo the old
about:contributors thingy.
We could have Gold, Silver, Bronze levels depending on contribution.
I remember being quite thrilled when WSM nominated me to that list years
ago.
> My own recent experience with ExQuilla is that there are plenty of users
> who are quite happy to pay $10 per year for email functionality. I
> believe that we could design a tasteful donation mechanism to capture
> this willingness from users that would be acceptable to the vast
> majority of users, and generate substantial income. I would guess that
> Thunderbird would earn several hundred thousand dollars per year this way.
>
> The question will arise, what do we need income for? That deserves a
> separate thread, but here are some quick comments on that.
>
> 1) I don't think that we can assume that Mozilla will continue to
> subsidize Thunderbird for the foreseeable future, as the nature of
> Thunderbird does not mesh with their core mission of making everything
> an HTML app. Thunderbird operations takes substantial funds to support.
>
> 2) There are many ways that we could provide more substantial support to
> core contributors that are short of providing income for living. That
> would include providing equipment, or travel expenses to conferences.
I often thought it quite odd that even paid staff sometimes had
> who are quite happy to pay $10 per year for email functionality. I
> believe that we could design a tasteful donation mechanism to capture
> this willingness from users that would be acceptable to the vast
> majority of users, and generate substantial income. I would guess that
> Thunderbird would earn several hundred thousand dollars per year this way.
>
> The question will arise, what do we need income for? That deserves a
> separate thread, but here are some quick comments on that.
>
> 1) I don't think that we can assume that Mozilla will continue to
> subsidize Thunderbird for the foreseeable future, as the nature of
> Thunderbird does not mesh with their core mission of making everything
> an HTML app. Thunderbird operations takes substantial funds to support.
>
> 2) There are many ways that we could provide more substantial support to
> core contributors that are short of providing income for living. That
> would include providing equipment, or travel expenses to conferences.
equipment shortages.
Things like "I don't have access to a Mac to test etc."
> 3) I believe that the major Thunderbird contributors should get together
> at least annually for an event that is part work and part play.
>
> 4) Certain important but non-development functions are difficult to
> support with volunteers. There might be a role for contractors in some
> of those areas, if there was income available.
>
> 5) I of course am not opposed to finding mechanisms for core developers
> to earn a living at their Thunderbird work, should the project learn to
> develop enough income that such a mechanism was ever possible. But we
> are far from that now.
>
> Could I have some comments on this?
Generally, I'm all for this idea.
> at least annually for an event that is part work and part play.
>
> 4) Certain important but non-development functions are difficult to
> support with volunteers. There might be a role for contractors in some
> of those areas, if there was income available.
>
> 5) I of course am not opposed to finding mechanisms for core developers
> to earn a living at their Thunderbird work, should the project learn to
> develop enough income that such a mechanism was ever possible. But we
> are far from that now.
>
> Could I have some comments on this?
It's a given that expenditure details should be available to all
contributors.
--
JoeS
John Allen
Nov 18, 2013, 6:39:56 PM11/18/13
to Kent James, tb-pl...@mozilla.org, Kent James
two things,
Will Mozilla allow Thunderbird to become self sufficient (bearing in
mind point 1 below)? Would they prefer Thunderbird to quietly disappear?
Could Mozilla be persuaded to move Thunderbird to a GPL license.
Will Mozilla allow Thunderbird to become self sufficient (bearing in
mind point 1 below)? Would they prefer Thunderbird to quietly disappear?
Could Mozilla be persuaded to move Thunderbird to a GPL license.
Gervase Markham
Nov 19, 2013, 10:05:01 AM11/19/13
to John Allen, Kent James, tb-pl...@mozilla.org, Kent James
On 18/11/13 23:39, John Allen wrote:
> Will Mozilla allow Thunderbird to become self sufficient (bearing in
> mind point 1 below)? Would they prefer Thunderbird to quietly disappear?
I don't think anyone in Mozilla actively wants Thunderbird to die. It's
> Will Mozilla allow Thunderbird to become self sufficient (bearing in
> mind point 1 below)? Would they prefer Thunderbird to quietly disappear?
a question of priorities, and the scarce time of skilled people.
> Could Mozilla be persuaded to move Thunderbird to a GPL license.
Gerv
Tanstaafl
Nov 19, 2013, 11:26:08 AM11/19/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
On 2013-11-19 4:52 AM, Axel Grude (Axel) <axel....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am definitely for this, and would further propose a yearly repetition
> (or whenever majorVer changes, whatever comes first).
Actually, I would go so far as to offer the contributor the ability to
> I am definitely for this, and would further propose a yearly repetition
> (or whenever majorVer changes, whatever comes first).
set up a *recurring* donation (would obviously require them to create an
account and add a Credit Card to it), either monthly or annually. I
could see myself setting up a recurring donation of $5/month easily.
The only problem with this would be the storing of the users CC info...
I'd hate to read a news article about how Thunderbirds contributor
database was hacked and users CC accounts were wiped out...
Onno Ekker
Nov 19, 2013, 1:02:47 PM11/19/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
I hadn't heard of Geary, but I've heard of Postbox which isn't a big
succes and I've heard of Pegasus, which has been my favorite email
client for a long time (when my email was still stored on a Novell
Netware server), but which also had problems raising enough funds
even for one developer. (Pegasus tried it by selling manuals, if i
remember correctly).
Only when you can make the donations repeating/annual I think you may have a way to raise a substantial amount of money. But it should be crystal clear to the contributors what happens with their money...
Onno
Only when you can make the donations repeating/annual I think you may have a way to raise a substantial amount of money. But it should be crystal clear to the contributors what happens with their money...
Onno
Paul Morris
Nov 19, 2013, 12:47:47 PM11/19/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
In relation to the proposal for a donation link in Thunderbird (which I think is both a good idea and a rather obvious move to make), I wonder if Gittip might be helpful in one way or another as part of, or in addition to, such a donation link. Here's the Gittip site: https://www.gittip.com/
It's a tool for making weekly payments to individuals (or organizations) to support whatever work they do (often this is volunteer work on free/open-source software).
Two possibilities that are not mutually exclusive:
1. Set up a TB organization account on Gittip and have that as an option for people who want to make recurring donations.
2. Individuals working on TB could set up Gittip accounts and then in some way TB could make TB users aware of a TB contributors list with links to their Gittip pages, allowing TB users to make recurring payments directly to those working on TB.
Note that Gittip does not make any money off of transactions that go through it. They only charge a minimal fee to cover the cost of the credit card fees. Gittip is itself funded by donations made through Gittip. (I'm not affiliated with Gittip, I just like their approach.) More info:
https://www.gittip.com/about/
https://www.gittip.com/about/faq.html
I don't want to distract from the discussion of the proposal for a donation link in general by getting into implementation details, but I thought I would bring this up as an interesting possibility, FWIW.
-Paul
It's a tool for making weekly payments to individuals (or organizations) to support whatever work they do (often this is volunteer work on free/open-source software).
Two possibilities that are not mutually exclusive:
1. Set up a TB organization account on Gittip and have that as an option for people who want to make recurring donations.
2. Individuals working on TB could set up Gittip accounts and then in some way TB could make TB users aware of a TB contributors list with links to their Gittip pages, allowing TB users to make recurring payments directly to those working on TB.
Note that Gittip does not make any money off of transactions that go through it. They only charge a minimal fee to cover the cost of the credit card fees. Gittip is itself funded by donations made through Gittip. (I'm not affiliated with Gittip, I just like their approach.) More info:
https://www.gittip.com/about/
https://www.gittip.com/about/faq.html
I don't want to distract from the discussion of the proposal for a donation link in general by getting into implementation details, but I thought I would bring this up as an interesting possibility, FWIW.
-Paul
Axel Grude (Axel)
Nov 19, 2013, 4:25:34 PM11/19/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Hi Onno,
(my mails still go through moderation so I am cc'ing everybody on the thread for speed, hope this is ok)
I think both had a good ingredient but lacking another
1 - Geary probably had some good community support. But donations were not mandatory (or it didn't succeed in persuading enough users to donate)
2 - Postbox made the money part mandatory, but doesn't have a great community or even product support. Their model is "we do not invest anything in the community or support - just use the forum if you need it". Plus they kind of stopped development and stopped talking to Addon authors about a year ago; which makes it feel like a dead project.
I think Thunderbird has both critical mass enough to get more donations and still more momentum than Postbox. The art is to persuade users that there will be innovation following the investment. I think we definitely definetly need some marketing people to help us out here!
Axel
(my mails still go through moderation so I am cc'ing everybody on the thread for speed, hope this is ok)
I think both had a good ingredient but lacking another
1 - Geary probably had some good community support. But donations were not mandatory (or it didn't succeed in persuading enough users to donate)
2 - Postbox made the money part mandatory, but doesn't have a great community or even product support. Their model is "we do not invest anything in the community or support - just use the forum if you need it". Plus they kind of stopped development and stopped talking to Addon authors about a year ago; which makes it feel like a dead project.
I think Thunderbird has both critical mass enough to get more donations and still more momentum than Postbox. The art is to persuade users that there will be innovation following the investment. I think we definitely definetly need some marketing people to help us out here!
Axel
--
Axel
Software Developer
Thunderbird Add-ons Developer (QuickFolders, quickFilters, QuickPasswords, Zombie Keys, SmartTemplate4)
AMO Editor
Software Developer
Thunderbird Add-ons Developer (QuickFolders, quickFilters, QuickPasswords, Zombie Keys, SmartTemplate4)
AMO Editor
Subject: Re: Proposal for donation link in Thunderbird 31
To: tb-pl...@mozilla.org - tb-planning [tb-pl...@mozilla.org]
From: Onno Ekker <o.e....@gmail.com> - Onno Ekker o.e....@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, 19/11/2013 18:02:47 18:02 GMT Standard Time {GMT ST} +0000 [Week 47]
Subject: Re: Proposal for donation link in Thunderbird 31
From: Onno Ekker <o.e....@gmail.com> - Onno Ekker o.e....@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, 19/11/2013 18:02:47 18:02 GMT Standard Time {GMT ST} +0000 [Week 47]
Subject: Re: Proposal for donation link in Thunderbird 31
Gervase Markham
Nov 20, 2013, 4:23:05 AM11/20/13
to John Allen, Kent James, tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Hi John,
You are welcome not to trust Mozilla if you do not wish to, but you are
unlikely to find a collection of allies here on a Mozilla mailing list.
On 20/11/13 00:44, John Allen wrote:
> I beg to disagree, Mozilla and their sponsors (which I believe is
> Google) want everything in their "Cloud". So that they can data mine
> everything about us. Remember we are not the customer/user we are the
> product to companies like Google, M$ ...
I have not seen any evidence within Mozilla that our deals with any
search engine have led us to take actions which are not also in the best
interests of users.
> It is not an immediate problem, however as its Mozilla's License,
> Mozilla can change the terms at any time.
Perhaps it might be wise to be aware of Mozilla's track record in regard
of how they go about changing the MPL before suggesting that there is a
non-zero chance that this may happen in the way you imply.
You are welcome not to trust Mozilla if you do not wish to, but you are
unlikely to find a collection of allies here on a Mozilla mailing list.
On 20/11/13 00:44, John Allen wrote:
> I beg to disagree, Mozilla and their sponsors (which I believe is
> Google) want everything in their "Cloud". So that they can data mine
> everything about us. Remember we are not the customer/user we are the
> product to companies like Google, M$ ...
I have not seen any evidence within Mozilla that our deals with any
search engine have led us to take actions which are not also in the best
interests of users.
> It is not an immediate problem, however as its Mozilla's License,
> Mozilla can change the terms at any time.
Perhaps it might be wise to be aware of Mozilla's track record in regard
of how they go about changing the MPL before suggesting that there is a
non-zero chance that this may happen in the way you imply.
Robert P. Goldman
Nov 19, 2013, 10:21:11 AM11/19/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Possibly in addition to the donation link, what about some way to
provide paid support? That might require more formal infrastructure,
though, so maybe that wouldn't work.
I switched from Thunderbird to Postbox for the better Mac integration
and hoping for support from a dedicated team, but have been disappointed
that they seem to be charging too little to support their product.
Personally, since email is an incredibly important part of my daily
workflow, I'd rather pay *more* and get support, instead of paying less
and maybe just throwing money down a hole.
What about having bounties for particular tickets, too? I get
disheartened when every now and then I get a bugzilla email, only to
find that it's just someone else signing up to be notified of ticket
status.... Maybe one could do a kickstarter sort of thing where you
sign up for a bounty, but only pay if enough co-sponsors join in so that
a useful amount of money is raised.
cheers,
r
provide paid support? That might require more formal infrastructure,
though, so maybe that wouldn't work.
I switched from Thunderbird to Postbox for the better Mac integration
and hoping for support from a dedicated team, but have been disappointed
that they seem to be charging too little to support their product.
Personally, since email is an incredibly important part of my daily
workflow, I'd rather pay *more* and get support, instead of paying less
and maybe just throwing money down a hole.
What about having bounties for particular tickets, too? I get
disheartened when every now and then I get a bugzilla email, only to
find that it's just someone else signing up to be notified of ticket
status.... Maybe one could do a kickstarter sort of thing where you
sign up for a bounty, but only pay if enough co-sponsors join in so that
a useful amount of money is raised.
cheers,
r
Kent James
Nov 21, 2013, 5:43:59 AM11/21/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
On 11/19/2013 7:21 AM, Robert P. Goldman wrote:
> What about having bounties for particular tickets, too? I get
> disheartened when every now and then I get a bugzilla email, only to
> find that it's just someone else signing up to be notified of ticket
> status.... Maybe one could do a kickstarter sort of thing where you
> sign up for a bounty, but only pay if enough co-sponsors join in so that
> a useful amount of money is raised.
One of the thoughts that I have had is to allow donors to dedicate their
> What about having bounties for particular tickets, too? I get
> disheartened when every now and then I get a bugzilla email, only to
> find that it's just someone else signing up to be notified of ticket
> status.... Maybe one could do a kickstarter sort of thing where you
> sign up for a bounty, but only pay if enough co-sponsors join in so that
> a useful amount of money is raised.
donation to a particular bug. That would both give some additional
incentive to the donation, as well as allow a mechanism to give some
compensation to contributors. I also think that if you look at votes on
Bugzilla, most of those are pointed to new features and not bugs. I
think you would find the same thing as well with a bug bounty program.
But starting down the road of rewarding some contributors, while there
are insufficient funds to reward all worthy contributors, is fraught
with peril. It is easy to destroy a community through actions that could
easily be viewed as unfair. Making such a process actually fair is
really hard.
:rkent
Gervase Markham
Nov 21, 2013, 6:12:13 AM11/21/13
to Kent James, tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Hi Kent,
On 21/11/13 10:43, Kent James wrote:
> One of the thoughts that I have had is to allow donors to dedicate their
> donation to a particular bug.
Before the Thunderbird team decides to do anything that looks like
directed donations or bounties, you would be well advised to acquaint
yourselves with the long and unhappy history of efforts to do this (both
project-specific and generic) in the free software community. It's a
really dense minefield, and the chances of getting blown up are high.
This objection does not apply, of course, to donations intended for a
general fund, where the TB team has discretion on what to use them for.
Gerv
On 21/11/13 10:43, Kent James wrote:
> One of the thoughts that I have had is to allow donors to dedicate their
> donation to a particular bug.
directed donations or bounties, you would be well advised to acquaint
yourselves with the long and unhappy history of efforts to do this (both
project-specific and generic) in the free software community. It's a
really dense minefield, and the chances of getting blown up are high.
This objection does not apply, of course, to donations intended for a
general fund, where the TB team has discretion on what to use them for.
Gerv
Kent James
Nov 21, 2013, 6:15:13 AM11/21/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Hi Gerv,
You didn't quote the rest of my post, like "But starting down the road
that I already supported your concerns.
:rkent
You didn't quote the rest of my post, like "But starting down the road
of rewarding some contributors, while there are insufficient funds to
reward all worthy contributors, is fraught with peril" I'm pretty sure
that I already supported your concerns.
:rkent
Gervase Markham
Nov 21, 2013, 6:24:17 AM11/21/13
to Kent James, tb-pl...@mozilla.org
On 21/11/13 11:15, Kent James wrote:
> You didn't quote the rest of my post, like "But starting down the road
> of rewarding some contributors, while there are insufficient funds to
> reward all worthy contributors, is fraught with peril" I'm pretty sure
> that I already supported your concerns.
Noted; but the pitfalls of bounties cover an even wider field than that
> You didn't quote the rest of my post, like "But starting down the road
> of rewarding some contributors, while there are insufficient funds to
> reward all worthy contributors, is fraught with peril" I'm pretty sure
> that I already supported your concerns.
particular concern (perceived unfairness), important thought it is.
ace
Nov 20, 2013, 4:57:27 PM11/20/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
This is already possible in small scale. See
http://freedomsponsors.org/core/issue/?s=&project_id=139&project_name=Thunderbird
.
I do not know if it works and anybody got some money from past bounties,
but this is what I encountered.
aceman
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Proposal for donation link in Thunderbird 31
From: Robert P. Goldman <rpgo...@sift.info>
To: tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:21:11 -0600
> What about having bounties for particular tickets, too? I get
> disheartened when every now and then I get a bugzilla email, only to
> find that it's just someone else signing up to be notified of ticket
> status.... Maybe one could do a kickstarter sort of thing where you
> sign up for a bounty, but only pay if enough co-sponsors join in so that
> a useful amount of money is raised.
>
> cheers,
http://freedomsponsors.org/core/issue/?s=&project_id=139&project_name=Thunderbird
.
I do not know if it works and anybody got some money from past bounties,
but this is what I encountered.
aceman
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Proposal for donation link in Thunderbird 31
From: Robert P. Goldman <rpgo...@sift.info>
To: tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:21:11 -0600
> What about having bounties for particular tickets, too? I get
> disheartened when every now and then I get a bugzilla email, only to
> find that it's just someone else signing up to be notified of ticket
> status.... Maybe one could do a kickstarter sort of thing where you
> sign up for a bounty, but only pay if enough co-sponsors join in so that
> a useful amount of money is raised.
>
> cheers,
Tanstaafl
Nov 21, 2013, 6:08:36 AM11/21/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
On 2013-11-21 5:43 AM, Kent James <ke...@caspia.com> wrote:
> But starting down the road of rewarding some contributors, while there
> are insufficient funds to reward all worthy contributors, is fraught
> with peril. It is easy to destroy a community through actions that could
> easily be viewed as unfair. Making such a process actually fair is
> really hard.
Maybe one option would be to have some kind of system where only a
> But starting down the road of rewarding some contributors, while there
> are insufficient funds to reward all worthy contributors, is fraught
> with peril. It is easy to destroy a community through actions that could
> easily be viewed as unfair. Making such a process actually fair is
> really hard.
certain percentage of the contribution can be dedicated to a certain bug
or bugs, with the rest going into a general pool.
The amount could vary based on how many votes the bug has (the more
votes, the higher the percentage of the contribution that can be
dedicated to it), up to some maximum (I was thinking 50%)?
Ben Bucksch
Nov 21, 2013, 12:24:53 PM11/21/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Gervase Markham wrote, On 21.11.2013 12:12:
> On 21/11/13 10:43, Kent James wrote:
>> One of the thoughts that I have had is to allow donors to dedicate their
>> donation to a particular bug.
> Before the Thunderbird team decides to do anything that looks like
> directed donations or bounties, you would be well advised to acquaint
> yourselves with the long and unhappy history of efforts to do this (both
> project-specific and generic) in the free software community. It's a
> really dense minefield, and the chances of getting blown up are high.
I second that.
> On 21/11/13 10:43, Kent James wrote:
>> One of the thoughts that I have had is to allow donors to dedicate their
>> donation to a particular bug.
> Before the Thunderbird team decides to do anything that looks like
> directed donations or bounties, you would be well advised to acquaint
> yourselves with the long and unhappy history of efforts to do this (both
> project-specific and generic) in the free software community. It's a
> really dense minefield, and the chances of getting blown up are high.
I've been burned personally. People had a rally on a bugzilla bug for a
feature. 2 companies pledged on it, and a few private pocket money
donors (which didn't make a dent on anything). Believing in the concept,
like rkent does, I took the offer, and I spent a lot of time for little
money to implement the feature. The project was a lot more time-intense
than expected, I purred a ton of time into it, and finally IIRC at least
one company didn't pay. It was a bad deal for everybody involved.
Bug bounties simply don't work unless you have a one single, concrete
company that pays everything and your "go-to" for approval and payment.
> This objection does not apply, of course, to donations intended for a
> general fund, where the TB team has discretion on what to use them for.
Ben
Kent James
Nov 21, 2013, 2:29:00 PM11/21/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
On 11/21/2013 9:24 AM, Ben Bucksch wrote:
> Believing in the concept, like rkent does,
which was full of caution.
> Bug bounties simply don't work unless you have a one single, concrete
> company that pays everything and your "go-to" for approval and payment.
Although it does not alleviate my overall concerns with the concept of
> company that pays everything and your "go-to" for approval and payment.
bug bounties, I'd like to at least point out that using prior-paid
donations managed by a central group to fund bug bounties does solve the
problem of having a "go to" for approval and payment.
:rkent
Ben Bucksch
Nov 21, 2013, 2:52:25 PM11/21/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Kent James wrote, On 21.11.2013 20:29:
> I'd like to at least point out that using prior-paid donations managed
> by a central group to fund bug bounties does solve the problem of
> having a "go to" for approval and payment.
That's right. But that's high overhead. Private users simply don't pony
> I'd like to at least point out that using prior-paid donations managed
> by a central group to fund bug bounties does solve the problem of
> having a "go to" for approval and payment.
up the necessary sums. Experience (discussed and tried often) says it
doesn't work. We have to admit that it should work, but doesn't, and
move on.
I agree with Gerv that a generic pool, centrally managed, is better. And
I agree that bugzilla votes should be a factor in the decision.
I think something along the lines of Kickstarter where 1 dollar buys you
1 vote could work well. You donate 10 dollars, and you have 10 votes to
spend on one or several bugs. You must donate now, though, and there's
no guarantee that you'll get your feature, you donate to the project and
the voting is just a way to steer in the right direction. The features
with the most votes/work-effort get picked and the funds are used for them.
Kent James
Nov 21, 2013, 3:05:52 PM11/21/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
On 11/21/2013 11:52 AM, Ben Bucksch wrote:
> I think something along the lines of Kickstarter where 1 dollar buys
> you 1 vote could work well. You donate 10 dollars, and you have 10
> votes to spend on one or several bugs. You must donate now, though,
> and there's no guarantee that you'll get your feature, you donate to
> the project and the voting is just a way to steer in the right
> direction. The features with the most votes/work-effort get picked and
> the funds are used for them.
I'd love to hear more ideas on how that might work, but what you are
> I think something along the lines of Kickstarter where 1 dollar buys
> you 1 vote could work well. You donate 10 dollars, and you have 10
> votes to spend on one or several bugs. You must donate now, though,
> and there's no guarantee that you'll get your feature, you donate to
> the project and the voting is just a way to steer in the right
> direction. The features with the most votes/work-effort get picked and
> the funds are used for them.
proposing is generally what I had in mind.
But let me be the naysayer here for awhile. The devil is in the "funds
are used for them" problem. There are many, many people who contribute
to a solution of a problem beyond the developer who writes the code,
including the original support contacts who raise the issue, the bug
triagers who help prioritize and clarify, and the reviewers who check
and improve the code. Then there is the management team that put the
whole thing together, and watches over to make sure it is fair and
reasonable. It bothers me to single out one role (the coder) for
compensation while ignoring the others. I don't have a solution to these
issues when the overall funds available are less than would be the fair
compensation of everyone involved.
:rkent
Ben Bucksch
Nov 21, 2013, 3:18:04 PM11/21/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Kent James wrote, On 21.11.2013 21:05:
> On 11/21/2013 11:52 AM, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>> I think something along the lines of Kickstarter where 1 dollar buys
>> you 1 vote could work well. You donate 10 dollars, and you have 10
>> votes to spend on one or several bugs. You must donate now, though,
>> and there's no guarantee that you'll get your feature, you donate to
>> the project and the voting is just a way to steer in the right
>> direction. The features with the most votes/work-effort get picked
>> and the funds are used for them.
> I'd love to hear more ideas on how that might work, but what you are
> proposing is generally what I had in mind.
Great!
> On 11/21/2013 11:52 AM, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>> I think something along the lines of Kickstarter where 1 dollar buys
>> you 1 vote could work well. You donate 10 dollars, and you have 10
>> votes to spend on one or several bugs. You must donate now, though,
>> and there's no guarantee that you'll get your feature, you donate to
>> the project and the voting is just a way to steer in the right
>> direction. The features with the most votes/work-effort get picked
>> and the funds are used for them.
> I'd love to hear more ideas on how that might work, but what you are
> proposing is generally what I had in mind.
> But let me be the naysayer here for awhile. The devil is in the "funds
> are used for them" problem. There are many, many people who contribute
> to a solution of a problem beyond the developer who writes the code,
> including the original support contacts who raise the issue, the bug
> triagers who help prioritize and clarify, and the reviewers who check
> and improve the code. Then there is the management team that put the
> whole thing together, and watches over to make sure it is fair and
> reasonable. It bothers me to single out one role (the coder) for
> compensation while ignoring the others. I don't have a solution to
> these issues when the overall funds available are less than would be
> the fair compensation of everyone involved.
into features. If we determine that we need servers, we'll buy them from
the donations. If we determine we need Mark Banner to steer us, we could
pay him from it (I don't think we can affort him, though :( ). From the
remaining funds, we can hire developers. And these developers then pick
the work items based on clear and those that have the "highest votes per
hour of work required" ratio. But where we have a choice, it should be
steered by direct user wish.
We *can* hire freelance developers for feature A or B, but I think a
selected number of permanent developers on salary would work better.
It's basically a government structure, and incentive to donate.
Ben
Ben Bucksch
Nov 21, 2013, 3:33:47 PM11/21/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Paul Morris wrote, On 19.11.2013 18:47:
> https://www.gittip.com/
>
> It's a tool for making weekly payments to individuals (or organizations) to support whatever work they do (often this is volunteer work on free/open-source software).
This is great. A recurring payment would be much better suited to fund
> https://www.gittip.com/
>
> It's a tool for making weekly payments to individuals (or organizations) to support whatever work they do (often this is volunteer work on free/open-source software).
the development than one-time payment. I'd rather have $5/month than $50
once. And that the former is easier spent, too.
Tanstaafl
Nov 22, 2013, 10:20:43 AM11/22/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
On 2013-11-21 6:08 AM, Tanstaafl <tans...@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> On 2013-11-21 5:43 AM, Kent James <ke...@caspia.com> wrote:
>> But starting down the road of rewarding some contributors, while there
>> are insufficient funds to reward all worthy contributors, is fraught
>> with peril. It is easy to destroy a community through actions that could
>> easily be viewed as unfair. Making such a process actually fair is
>> really hard.
>
> Maybe one option would be to have some kind of system where only a
> certain percentage of the contribution can be dedicated to a certain bug
> or bugs, with the rest going into a general pool.
>
> The amount could vary based on how many votes the bug has (the more
> votes, the higher the percentage of the contribution that can be
> dedicated to it), up to some maximum (I was thinking 50%)?
No one thinks this is a viable option?
> On 2013-11-21 5:43 AM, Kent James <ke...@caspia.com> wrote:
>> But starting down the road of rewarding some contributors, while there
>> are insufficient funds to reward all worthy contributors, is fraught
>> with peril. It is easy to destroy a community through actions that could
>> easily be viewed as unfair. Making such a process actually fair is
>> really hard.
>
> Maybe one option would be to have some kind of system where only a
> certain percentage of the contribution can be dedicated to a certain bug
> or bugs, with the rest going into a general pool.
>
> The amount could vary based on how many votes the bug has (the more
> votes, the higher the percentage of the contribution that can be
> dedicated to it), up to some maximum (I was thinking 50%)?
Irving Reid
Nov 22, 2013, 11:40:53 AM11/22/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
I'm concerned about any plan that lets users put $$ on specific bugs.
Our biggest hindrance isn't so much money as it is availability of
people with both time and expertise to fix even the most pressing issues
in our backlog. Per-bug money might attract some time & expertise, but
I'd be surprised if it's enough to be sustainable, and it's likely to
come with unrealistic expectations.
We already have problems with people getting angry about their
particular issue not being addressed. Adding "I put $50 on that bug!" to
the existing "Why do you idiots have 10-year-old bugs?" comments isn't
going to be very attractive to new contributing developers (let alone
the negative emotions it may inspire in existing devs)...
I suppose we could annotate bugs with a ball-park cost of fixing, to
give people an idea of how much they would need to pledge to attract
attention, but there's still a lot of ways I could see this making it
even harder for us to manage expectations around bug prioritization and
fixing.
- irving -
Our biggest hindrance isn't so much money as it is availability of
people with both time and expertise to fix even the most pressing issues
in our backlog. Per-bug money might attract some time & expertise, but
I'd be surprised if it's enough to be sustainable, and it's likely to
come with unrealistic expectations.
We already have problems with people getting angry about their
particular issue not being addressed. Adding "I put $50 on that bug!" to
the existing "Why do you idiots have 10-year-old bugs?" comments isn't
going to be very attractive to new contributing developers (let alone
the negative emotions it may inspire in existing devs)...
I suppose we could annotate bugs with a ball-park cost of fixing, to
give people an idea of how much they would need to pledge to attract
attention, but there's still a lot of ways I could see this making it
even harder for us to manage expectations around bug prioritization and
fixing.
- irving -
Ben Bucksch
Nov 22, 2013, 12:14:10 PM11/22/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Irving Reid wrote, On 22.11.2013 17:40:
> I'm concerned about any plan that lets users put $$ on specific bugs.
> Our biggest hindrance isn't so much money as it is availability of
> people with both time and expertise to fix even the most pressing
> issues in our backlog.
I for one would be happy to work on Thunderbird, and be available. I
> I'm concerned about any plan that lets users put $$ on specific bugs.
> Our biggest hindrance isn't so much money as it is availability of
> people with both time and expertise to fix even the most pressing
> issues in our backlog.
just haven't found anybody who would pay me for it.
(And I think I've done enough to contribute on my own time, over all the
years.)
> We already have problems with people getting angry about their
> particular issue not being addressed. Adding "I put $50 on that bug!"
> to the existing "Why do you idiots have 10-year-old bugs?" comments
> isn't going to be very attractive
clear that the donation is to the project, and the voting is just a
government structure. People need to understand, before they donate.
Just putting up a "Donation" button will go wrong on a social level, yes.
> I suppose we could annotate bugs with a ball-park cost of fixing, to
> give people an idea of how much they would need to pledge to attract
> attention
figure (that can be depended on) for a bug until you're done 1/3 of the
work.
You'd think that we'd learn with experience, but it still happens to me
all the time. Concrete example: Simple feature, "SPECIAL USE" folders, I
thought it would take 1-2 days, told the customer max. 5 days, got
dragged by reviewer and code into collateral changes, spent 5 full days,
and the feature work itself has barely been started.
One of the big uncertainties in estimating for me is the review, in
fact. What will the reviewer demand? Will it just go through, or does he
demand refactoring? How responsive is he (hours, days, weeks)? This is
where most of my calculations go right out of the wide-open window. (But
review is a separate discussion, not for this thread. Just wanted to
mention that it's a major time factor.)
Ben
Robert Goldman
Nov 22, 2013, 3:28:33 PM11/22/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:40:53 -0500
> From: Irving Reid <irv...@mozilla.com>
> To: tb-pl...@mozilla.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal for donation link in Thunderbird 31
> Message-ID: <528F891...@mozilla.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I'm concerned about any plan that lets users put $$ on specific bugs.
> Our biggest hindrance isn't so much money as it is availability of
> people with both time and expertise to fix even the most pressing issues
> I'm concerned about any plan that lets users put $$ on specific bugs.
> Our biggest hindrance isn't so much money as it is availability of
> people with both time and expertise to fix even the most pressing issues
> in our backlog. Per-bug money might attract some time & expertise, but
> I'd be surprised if it's enough to be sustainable, and it's likely to
> come with unrealistic expectations.
As a possible contributor, what *are* realistic expectations I should have?
> I'd be surprised if it's enough to be sustainable, and it's likely to
> come with unrealistic expectations.
If realistic means "I get no say whatsoever about which bugs get fixed,"
then being realistic is a pretty big disincentive to donation.
If there is a project with a strong "central tendency" that aligns with
my use of the product, then I'm happy to donate to support it.
OTOH, if the volunteers who work on a project aren't interested in the
bugs/features that are critical to my use case, or focus on a particular
platform over another, then I probably won't donate.
If the Thunderbird project is going to be a self-directed volunteer
project, instead of letting contributors vote for bugs, I'd suggest the
donation button should be accompanied by a statement of the volunteers'
priorities. That would be realistic, honest, and would be likely to
produce a situation where contributors felt good about their
contributions, but might produce a situation where the pool of
contributors was smaller.
Alternatively, if you permit voting on bugs/tickets, then you should
provide some scheme of governance that will honor that voting process.
That might generate many more contributions, but might also lead the
developers in directions they don't want to go. If, as you say,
person-hours, not money, is the biggest obstacle, this probably won't
work. But the worst thing would be to permit the donating community to
express its opinions, and then ignore the results.
Unicorn.Consulting
Nov 25, 2013, 10:19:24 AM11/25/13
to rpgo...@sift.net, tb-pl...@mozilla.org
On 23/11/2013 6:58 AM, Robert Goldman
wrote:
Message: 2 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:40:53 -0500 From: Irving Reid <irv...@mozilla.com> To: tb-pl...@mozilla.org Subject: Re: Proposal for donation link in Thunderbird 31 Message-ID: <528F891...@mozilla.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed I'm concerned about any plan that lets users put $$ on specific bugs. Our biggest hindrance isn't so much money as it is availability of people with both time and expertise to fix even the most pressing issues in our backlog. Per-bug money might attract some time & expertise, but I'd be surprised if it's enough to be sustainable, and it's likely to come with unrealistic expectations.As a possible contributor, what *are* realistic expectations I should have? If realistic means "I get no say whatsoever about which bugs get fixed," then being realistic is a pretty big disincentive to donation. If there is a project with a strong "central tendency" that aligns with my use of the product, then I'm happy to donate to support it. OTOH, if the volunteers who work on a project aren't interested in the bugs/features that are critical to my use case, or focus on a particular platform over another, then I probably won't donate.
If you want control it is fairly simple really, hire someone to do
the work you want done. No involvement with donations, Mozilla or
anyone else here. The worst case scenario is you end up with a fork
of Thunderbird that does what you want. But my reading of what is
going on is that the module owners are fairly easy to get along with
with regards to new features and particularly bug fixes.
The "project" needs funds, if you do not wish to contribute to that general fund in favour of funding your own developer fine, but I hope others see the value in the "project" and not just a way to buy a priority vote for a feature.
I would however be most interested in hearing from Mozilla on why they choose not to eat their own dogfood.
Matt
The "project" needs funds, if you do not wish to contribute to that general fund in favour of funding your own developer fine, but I hope others see the value in the "project" and not just a way to buy a priority vote for a feature.
I would however be most interested in hearing from Mozilla on why they choose not to eat their own dogfood.
Matt
Magnus Melin
Nov 29, 2013, 3:05:47 PM11/29/13
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Some kind of council could indeed be a good idea. That would certainly
make the decision process easier and could serve as the official voice
of thunderbird. One problem with the current situation is that with no
full-time employees there's little to make a process go forward
naturally, and especially areas such as PR don't go into their full
potential because there's nobody with enough will, power, dedication and
time to make the decisions needed.
-Magnus
On 19.11.2013 00:29, Kent James wrote:
> But concerning accountability, a year ago I tried to propose a
> management council for Thunderbird. I would propose the same thing
> again. Actually part of my motivation for raising the donation issue
> is that I think that the Thunderbird community needs to develop
> capacity for self-management, which is sorely lacking at the moment.
> During the council discussions last year, the official position seemed
> to be that the existing management structure, using the module owners
> group as the de facto management team, was working well. Although it
> is possible to use the module system to organize that management team,
> I don't think that has been done effectively in the past. Having
> donations income will force us to deal with the issue, as you point
> out. I would certainly strongly oppose having the donation income
> buried within the existing Thunderbird accounts which have been
> publicly opaque.
make the decision process easier and could serve as the official voice
of thunderbird. One problem with the current situation is that with no
full-time employees there's little to make a process go forward
naturally, and especially areas such as PR don't go into their full
potential because there's nobody with enough will, power, dedication and
time to make the decisions needed.
-Magnus
On 19.11.2013 00:29, Kent James wrote:
> But concerning accountability, a year ago I tried to propose a
> management council for Thunderbird. I would propose the same thing
> again. Actually part of my motivation for raising the donation issue
> is that I think that the Thunderbird community needs to develop
> capacity for self-management, which is sorely lacking at the moment.
> During the council discussions last year, the official position seemed
> to be that the existing management structure, using the module owners
> group as the de facto management team, was working well. Although it
> is possible to use the module system to organize that management team,
> I don't think that has been done effectively in the past. Having
> donations income will force us to deal with the issue, as you point
> out. I would certainly strongly oppose having the donation income
> buried within the existing Thunderbird accounts which have been
> publicly opaque.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages