Skip to content

Comment on BitHub = Bitcoin + GitHub. An experiment in funding privacy OSSparent

Comments

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. :)

[1]: http://www.rug.nl/gmw/psychology/research/onderzoek_summersc...

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.