Subject: Re: [boost] review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re: [rfc] rcpp)
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-25 03:56:50
On 24 February 2010 12:08, Brian Wood <woodbrian77_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I think Boost should work on turning traffic on it's pages
> into advertising revenue.
Hmmmm... If I can get a nickel for each message I approve or reject as
moderator of a Boost mailing list, .... PROFIT! :-)
More seriously, no. Once you start collecting money, you become a business.
You start needing things like accountants and lawyers. Who will pay for
that? If you are paying people for work performed, you may have to fill out
IRS paperwork (if you are US based). Who is going to do that? Are we now
an entity that can easily be sued?
> That money could be used to
> help those who want to be involved in the project.
> Giving a review manager $200 for 40+ hours of work
> only makes sense.
Then comes the "which jobs do we pay for?". If a reviewer spends 80 hours
doing a detailed review, should we pay them too? What about all the people
who tirelessly work on getting a release out the door every quarter? Why
should they work "for free" if other people are getting paid? If we don't
make enough money from web advertising, you can't just not pay the review
managers. Who will make up the deficit? Etc., etc.
I understand the sentiment behind paying an honorarium to encourage people
to do work, but I just don't see how it is practical.
-- Nevin Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]> (847) 691-1404
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk