Krzysztof Kowalczyk wrote:
Whatever your opinion is on why they failed, the only objective evidence we have is that they failed.
I think it makes a lot of sense to examine why other projects failed.
Take LiveJournal, for example -- the Bazaar system that I based my idea upon. Under your definition you're going to tell me that it "failed" simply because the Bazaar is no longer used. However, I was there when it happened, and I participated in it. I can tell you from first-hand experience that it was an incredible success. Developer motivation increased significantly, and the bounties that were paid out were for much-needed work on the software.
The real reason why it was shut down (heck, it wasn't even explicitly shut down, it was just neglected) was not that it was unsuccessful, but just that the alternative they went for in parallel -- namely, hiring employees for software development -- was just as successful, but much less of a hassle.
I don't know much about finance, so I can't say how feasible it is for the Wikimedia Foundation to hire software engineers, but intuitively one would think that Wikimedia would benefit from such a Bazaar-like system for as long as there is a significant risk that donations suddenly drop and would no longer suffice to pay an employee. In my mind, the Bazaar system has an advantage for both sides: Developers can still be volunteers (i.e. opt out of any commitment any time they want), and Wikimedia needn't be afraid of financial problems arising from it (since never more than a given percentage of a month's donations are spent on these bounties).
Timwi