Give a bug a hug

[Richmond]

Cripes . . . this is turning out to be a right can of worms . . . and, 
obviously, there is an awful lot of reluctance
to sponsor/donate for bug fixes. Let me attempt to summarise so far:

1. people feel that the company responsible for producing some software 
should bear full
responsibility for fixing bugs.

Mind you, if that were the case I don't think there would be anyone 
developing any software anywhere at all.

2. People feel that "another: KickStarter 'thing' for bugfixes might end 
up as a blackhole swallowing
their moolah with no guarantee of getting what they have stumped up 
their hard earned bucks for.

Well . . . Yes . . . I can see both those points of view as perfectly 
valid . . .

But the simple fact is, like it or not, LiveCode has got some 
long-standing bugs that at least some people
feel are show-stoppers, and the people at LiveCode Central do not seem 
to be able to do much about them:

Why?

Well; here are a few possible reasons:

1. They have "bitten of more than they can chew" insofar that they have 
committed themselves to such a lot of work in terms of continuing 
development they just don't have the time or resources to get down to 
the bugs.

[This is why I suggested that LiveCode Central might like to consider 
taking a period "off" their continuing
development to retrench and devote that period of time to attacking 
those bugs - this, of course,
presupposes they all have sufficient funds to put food in their fridges.]

2. They are undermanned.

3. They are underfunded.

4. They expected more "outside help" after they set up their Open Source 
version.

And #2, #3 and #4 might be sides of the same coin.

And if "We" don't do something about those bugs they may languish there 
forever.

Now an idea, which may be about as bonkers as most of my other ideas, is 
this:

Over on the bug-reporting system (or linked to it) have a system where a 
price is attached to "the head" of the most pernicious bugs. Individuals 
would be then welcome to donate funds to specific bugs, and once the price
has been raised other individuals would be welcome to attempt to fix the 
bug, for which, if they can properly
demonstrate they have fixed it, they get the bounty.

There would, of necessity, need to be an overseer of this whole project.

On 7.10.19 23:02, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
> On 10/7/19 7:57 AM, Mike Kerner via use-livecode wrote:
>> there isn't any reason why bug bounties have to all go to the 
>> mothership.
>> you're (for lack of a better word) kickstarting a bug fix.  it's a 
>> bounty.
>> it should go to the person who delivers the fix, the bounty hunter.
>
> Um, no. You'd be giving money to someone in the hopes that enough 
> others will also do the same to reach the goal required to attempt to 
> fix the bug. But you're charged whether or not the goal is reached. 
> And whether or not the bug actually gets fixed. It's a bad fit, and 
> the only way I'd ever put money into this kind of scheme is once 
> enough other fools have done so and the goal has been met *and* I 
> think there's a reasonable chance the bug might get fixed in a timely 
> manner.
>
> Look at the number of folks who complain about not having feature x 
> from the LC Kickstarter campaign, where there was explicitly no 
> guarantee of features actually appearing. Now extrapolate to a 
> campaign where you end up paying into a scheme whether or not anything 
> actually materializes.
>