This seems like a terrible idea to me. I believe the entire world of open source functions based on intrinsic motivation: people participate because the act of participation itself is enjoyable. This has some flaws (less fun stuff like docs don't get as much love), but unlocks a huge pool of untapped motivation in people.
Studies have shown that if you add in even a small amount of extrinsic motivation (i.e. pay people) it dramatically affects their perception of intrinsic reward. In other words, if you pay someone for doing the exact same thing, the task becomes less enjoyable.
If we start throwing cash around, it's going to have a huge impact on the psychological aspect of open-source, and probably not for the better.
Studies have shown that if you add in even a small amount of extrinsic motivation (i.e. pay people) it dramatically affects their perception of intrinsic reward.
These studies are typically set up such that there's no choice; you have kids (usually) do some activity like drawing for either no reward or extrinsic reward, and then see how many continue once you remove the extrinsic reward.
There are a lot of possible explanations for this; the one I like the most is based on self-perception theory, which would predict that once you've accepted the reward, you attribute your motivation to the reward.
There are some differences between those studies and this scenario:
1. Open-source developers have a far wider range of options, and must actively choose to work on a project with financial reward.
2. Open-source developers who have already contributed some amount for free should be less influenced than new developers -- they already have had altruistic/intrinsically-motivated self perceptions.
Developers that are attracted to OWS projects because of this reward probably won't stay if the reward is removed, but I'm not sure, and don't predict, that OWS projects will attract fewer developers overall because of this.
I think that intrinsic and extrinsic motivators can definitely co-exist, especially for domains where there are differences in the tasks -- for example, offering these bounties for "less fun" stuff (or dynamically offering more for parts of the repo that have been touched further into the past).
These studies are typically set up such that there's no choice; you have kids (usually)
There's a lot more literature behind this than just studies with kids, though I'm a total novice here. Here's[1] a painfully detailed meta-analysis I found.
Developers that are attracted to OWS projects because of this reward probably won't stay if the reward is removed, but I'm not sure, and don't predict, that OWS projects will attract fewer developers overall because of this.
Reducing this down to just "more or fewer contributors" is the kind of over-simplifying that I worry about here. The software industry is not historically people-savvy, and open source is an entirely social phenomenon. It's easy to mess things up.
I'm less worried about the number of people changing than I am their relationship with the projects they work on changing. Right now, if I send someone a patch, I feel good because I know I'm doing a purely good thing. If I send a patch to a project that pays for patches, that's not bad, but it means now I feel more like I'm freelancing or some other more complication jumble of emotions.
Likewise, if someone sends me a patch, do I get excited that they want to be a part of my project? Have I met a kindred spirit? Or are they just gunning for a chunk of BTC in their off hours?
I'm not saying introducing money is a bad thing here, but like all other avenues of social activity, involving even a small amount of money radically changes the nature of it. Don't believe me? Try tipping your parents after they have you over for dinner. Maybe leave a fifty on your significant other's bedside table and see how that goes. :)
I agree, and while it's not quite ready for a show HN yet.. I've been working on a quick side-project that allows people to send a 'thank you' to (github) open source committers.
I just completely agree that trying to motivate people who give huge amounts of time with small amounts of cash isn't a great idea. That said, it's good that there's a place for it (gittip etc.) should people want to.
I'm not sure if I'll ever really get the culture change in encouraging more "thanks" in the world, but it has been a fun little project getting up to speed on rails4, octokit etc.
What it means is that working on Dart is my job. It's a great job, and I love it. Like other good jobs, I get lots of both extrinsic and intrinsic reward from it. (In fact, a curious facet of being at Google is that the intrinsic rewards of being at the company feel like they overshadow the extrinsic ones. I'm constantly in this "and you pay me too?!" fugue of astonishment.)
But it also means that working on Dart is work. I do some extra-curricular activities related to it: I've spoken at a couple of conferences. But even then, I'm getting time off from work for free to go there, so in some sense I'm still being compensated.
I spend time answering questions about Dart online outside of work hours, but that's because, through some Hermione-like mental affliction, I will spend time answering questions about anything I know (and several things I don't).
But, aside from that, I actually don't do much of anything Dart-related when I get off work. Dart is what I do 40 hours a week. It's a happy 40 hours, but when I go home, I stop working on it and stop thinking about it.
Would I hack on it until the wee hours if I wasn't getting paid to do it while the sun was up? I don't know.
I've been grappling with this question because I, myself, have been paid to contribute to OSS for the last few years. I think my experience is much more blurry than yours is, at least with work/life separation.
I think my experience is much more blurry than yours is, at least with work/life separation.
Well one thing that definitely helps is having two small kids. :)
I basically have to have a strong work/non-work separation now because most of my evening is booked solid with dinner/clean up/pajamas/brush teeth/vitamins/books/stories. Back before I was a family man the boundary between work and the rest of my life was a lot squishier.
Comments
This seems like a terrible idea to me. I believe the entire world of open source functions based on intrinsic motivation: people participate because the act of participation itself is enjoyable. This has some flaws (less fun stuff like docs don't get as much love), but unlocks a huge pool of untapped motivation in people.
Studies have shown that if you add in even a small amount of extrinsic motivation (i.e. pay people) it dramatically affects their perception of intrinsic reward. In other words, if you pay someone for doing the exact same thing, the task becomes less enjoyable.
If we start throwing cash around, it's going to have a huge impact on the psychological aspect of open-source, and probably not for the better.
These studies are typically set up such that there's no choice; you have kids (usually) do some activity like drawing for either no reward or extrinsic reward, and then see how many continue once you remove the extrinsic reward.
There are a lot of possible explanations for this; the one I like the most is based on self-perception theory, which would predict that once you've accepted the reward, you attribute your motivation to the reward.
There are some differences between those studies and this scenario:
1. Open-source developers have a far wider range of options, and must actively choose to work on a project with financial reward.
2. Open-source developers who have already contributed some amount for free should be less influenced than new developers -- they already have had altruistic/intrinsically-motivated self perceptions.
Developers that are attracted to OWS projects because of this reward probably won't stay if the reward is removed, but I'm not sure, and don't predict, that OWS projects will attract fewer developers overall because of this.
I think that intrinsic and extrinsic motivators can definitely co-exist, especially for domains where there are differences in the tasks -- for example, offering these bounties for "less fun" stuff (or dynamically offering more for parts of the repo that have been touched further into the past).
There's a lot more literature behind this than just studies with kids, though I'm a total novice here. Here's[1] a painfully detailed meta-analysis I found.
Reducing this down to just "more or fewer contributors" is the kind of over-simplifying that I worry about here. The software industry is not historically people-savvy, and open source is an entirely social phenomenon. It's easy to mess things up.
I'm less worried about the number of people changing than I am their relationship with the projects they work on changing. Right now, if I send someone a patch, I feel good because I know I'm doing a purely good thing. If I send a patch to a project that pays for patches, that's not bad, but it means now I feel more like I'm freelancing or some other more complication jumble of emotions.
Likewise, if someone sends me a patch, do I get excited that they want to be a part of my project? Have I met a kindred spirit? Or are they just gunning for a chunk of BTC in their off hours?
I'm not saying introducing money is a bad thing here, but like all other avenues of social activity, involving even a small amount of money radically changes the nature of it. Don't believe me? Try tipping your parents after they have you over for dinner. Maybe leave a fifty on your significant other's bedside table and see how that goes. :)
[1]: http://www.rug.nl/gmw/psychology/research/onderzoek_summersc...
I agree, and while it's not quite ready for a show HN yet.. I've been working on a quick side-project that allows people to send a 'thank you' to (github) open source committers.
I just completely agree that trying to motivate people who give huge amounts of time with small amounts of cash isn't a great idea. That said, it's good that there's a place for it (gittip etc.) should people want to.
Anyway, if you want to give feedback http://github.com/thankadeveloper/thankadeveloper and http://thankadeveloper.herokuapp.com (in the process of polishing, domain etc.).
I'm not sure if I'll ever really get the culture change in encouraging more "thanks" in the world, but it has been a fun little project getting up to speed on rails4, octokit etc.
Aren't you paid by Google to work on Dart? Apologies if I have the entirely wrong person.
How is that different?
I am, this is a great question!
What it means is that working on Dart is my job. It's a great job, and I love it. Like other good jobs, I get lots of both extrinsic and intrinsic reward from it. (In fact, a curious facet of being at Google is that the intrinsic rewards of being at the company feel like they overshadow the extrinsic ones. I'm constantly in this "and you pay me too?!" fugue of astonishment.)
But it also means that working on Dart is work. I do some extra-curricular activities related to it: I've spoken at a couple of conferences. But even then, I'm getting time off from work for free to go there, so in some sense I'm still being compensated.
I spend time answering questions about Dart online outside of work hours, but that's because, through some Hermione-like mental affliction, I will spend time answering questions about anything I know (and several things I don't).
But, aside from that, I actually don't do much of anything Dart-related when I get off work. Dart is what I do 40 hours a week. It's a happy 40 hours, but when I go home, I stop working on it and stop thinking about it.
Would I hack on it until the wee hours if I wasn't getting paid to do it while the sun was up? I don't know.
Thanks this makes total sense.
I've been grappling with this question because I, myself, have been paid to contribute to OSS for the last few years. I think my experience is much more blurry than yours is, at least with work/life separation.
Well one thing that definitely helps is having two small kids. :)
I basically have to have a strong work/non-work separation now because most of my evening is booked solid with dinner/clean up/pajamas/brush teeth/vitamins/books/stories. Back before I was a family man the boundary between work and the rest of my life was a lot squishier.