Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
The point is that we currently have no decision making
procedure for
which features _should_ be implemented.
I wouldn't have thought this decision was particularly hard.
Encouraging donators to offer money for features they
want to be
realized would make the situation even worse since most people not
involved in coding don't "wish" things which would be necessary from a
developer's point of view.
Again, as I said, 25% of the money that donors don't explicitly assign
to a bug or feature, should be assignable by someone else. The Board of
Trustees was a suggestion, but if you think the developers should have
some say about this, then certainly we can come up with an
averaging-percentage system for this too (and give the Board of Trustees
permanent voting power). Something like:
At the beginning of Month A,
* I say: Feature X is worth $10, Y is worth $20, Z is worth $25
* You say: Feature X is worth $10, Y is worth $50, Z isn't worth anything
* Jimbo says: Feature X is worth $22, Y is worth $26, Z is worth $11
Then we get: X = $14, Y = $32, Z = $12
Again, the averaging could optionally be weighted by voting power.
Timwi