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