In the past week, two separate open source projects, Funambol & OWASP have announced plans to pay developers small (but respectable) sums of cash to work on certain aspects of the projects. The work involves things like testing, documentation or adding new features that don’t have an owner as yet.
In typical mature open source projects, the core developers work full-time on the project (funded via a commercial or non-profit entity). These developers have a vested interest in making their piece of the code/project as solid as it can, because of their own reputation and the fact they need the software itself. They have ownership of the code and a vested interest to stay interested in the code/project.
What is surprising about the Funambol & OWASP news is that the developers are being hired for short term work. There is no strong feeling of ownership for these developers (although maybe that is what Funambol & OWASP hope will result). Just as important, the hired guns may not even use the resulting software from the project.
A key strength of open source projects is the community around the project. I wonder what impact paying hired guns for short-term work on an open source project will have on the community aspect.
09.14.06 at 1:18 am
Hi Savio,
You bring up an important point. There’s an important distinction that I should make though.
Yes, the developers are effectively hired for short-term work, but I think, in fact, there WILL be a strong feeling of ownership for the pieces they are developing.
The bounty money offered is not inconsequential, as you point out. But the money alone is not enough to inspire the level of time/effort/commitment required for these projects. So, what motivates the developers that take on these projects? It is that THEY also have a need for this code and the functionality it enables. This is why someone ultimately steps up to undertake one of these projects – its NOT just for the money. And, this is what makes their contributions more valuable and more longstanding and less prone to issues.
Additionally, the software is open source after all. Everyone in the community sees this code and the end result. I doubt any developer would want to gain a reputation of delivering sub-standard, poor quality code. Anyone who undertakes these projects will also know that the community has the power to either laud them or condemn them. This can be a very powerful motivator.
So, hopefully, the money just serves as a little extra kick to help community members commit to becoming more seriously involved.
Thanks again for bringing up this important point.
Best regards,
Jason Finkelstein
Funambol Community Manager
09.14.06 at 5:29 pm
Hey Jason,
It’s nice to see that the Funambol community didn’t just throw money at the problem without thinking about the impact and desired outcomes first. Kudos to you and the team.
I guess, I was thinking about sites like Elance and Guru where there are plenty of developers seeking short-term work opportunities. And not to disparage anyone on those sites, because friends have used them and have good things to say, I think the level of commitment to the Funambol project would be different vs. someone who actually uses your products.
If you’re really just pulling from your current user community, or attracting new users/committers, then it makes a lot of sense.
Good luck!
Savio
09.22.06 at 11:44 pm
[...] The idea of paying outsiders to work on product features is beginning to take hold. Neuros, a media device developer, is openly allowing owners to hack into their systems to build new features. Users that contribute needed features (like allowing YouTube & Google videos to play on the Neuros OSD, or adding VoIP functionality) will get paid between $500 and $1000. [...]