Re: [boost] review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re:[rfc] rcpp)

Subject: Re: [boost] review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re:[rfc] rcpp)
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-25 09:33:39

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nevin Liber" <nevin_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re:[rfc] rcpp)

> 
> 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.

I agre completly with Nevin. Please, No Money!

Vicente