* MJ Ray (mjr@phonecoop.coop) wrote:
Paul Poulain wrote:
Le 07/11/2013 17:31, glaws a écrit :
*+1. Excellent idea! How would this work? Would the funding organization contract directly with a separate dev to signoff/QA, or would the code developer contract with someone to do this? Would there be a conflict of interest if the funding organization had someone on their staff sign/QA if that person was qualified?* I started a private discussion with some other developers yesterday, about this question.
There are different ways to achieve this goal: * the funder funds 3 different organisations he choose * the funder funds 1 organisation, that sub-contract 2 others
Uh-oh! I think both of those present the same conflict of interest that is why it is(was?) discouraged for people from one company to do all the development and signing on a patch: they all have a short-term financial incentive to approve less-than-great work. I'm sure many wouldn't, but it still means the reviews aren't very independent.
I'd like it if developers could barter sign-off reviews (not the actual sign-offs, because it takes as much time to reject with reasons - if not more time) in a bit more structured/asynchronous way than the current IRC-based begging/nagging. Then a funder could fund 1 organisation and it barters reviews with others to ensure its developments get reviewed. Has anyone an easy way to do this?
I plan to write something, but I need help from a UX person. I want a simple taskboard, with bugs, that people can claim by a simple click. Then a simple karma type system. ByWater have signed off 10 Catalyst patches, Catalyst have signed off 5 software.coop and 1 Bywater patch, leaving Catalyst 4 patches to go ... kind of idea. It's not fully formed, but if it sounds like something people would to see, or explore further, let me know and I will devote some evenings to it. Chris -- Chris Cormack Catalyst IT Ltd. +64 4 803 2238 PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington 6142, New Zealand