Damn! This is surely an amazing QoL feature. Well done.
GitHub Sponsors
11–20 of 516 posts
Re: GitHub Sponsors
#12I love this. It's actually huge, but I wonder why you have to apply for a waitlist in order to be able to get sponsored? Why wouldn't we be allowed to sponsor anyone? I suppose it has something to do to prevent money laundry?
Makes sense to scale a product slowly.
Re: GitHub Sponsors
#13[deleted]
Re: GitHub Sponsors
#14A logical next step would be to add bounty on specific bugs or features requests.
If a company is relying on open source, and has no capability to fix a critical bug (which is a bad strategy but it certainly happens), it would probably be ready to pay a hefty sum so that the maintainer, or anyone involved in the project, will have at least a look at it.
Today, unless you can contact directly the maintainer and hope he or she has some spare time, I don't know how you can solve that kind of issue.
However, I am not sure who will decide a bug is fixed or a feature properly implemented.
Re: GitHub Sponsors
#15I love this. I do wonder though if anyone can educate me on the choice to do a monthly sponsorship? I think that's awesome but at the same time, there are a lot of developers I want to send 10 dollar tips to for that library that they made.
Just wondering if there's a reason to not have both. My guess is that foregoing one time transactions in favour of ensuring that people gravitate towards making a more sustainable donation seemed like a rational choice. Pure speculation there so if there's any other reason why it wasn't done I'd be really grateful if anyone from Github might be able to share.
Re: GitHub Sponsors
#16A one time contribution would be great - since I personally cannot afford sponsoring monthly.
Re: GitHub Sponsors
#17I love this. It's actually huge, but I wonder why you have to apply for a waitlist in order to be able to get sponsored? Why wouldn't we be allowed to sponsor anyone? I suppose it has something to do to prevent money laundry?
I guess because it is still in limited beta. Pretty sure it's gonna open for everyone in the future.
Re: GitHub Sponsors
#18I love this. I do wonder though if anyone can educate me on the choice to do a monthly sponsorship? I think that's awesome but at the same time, there are a lot of developers I want to send 10 dollar tips to for that library that they made. Just wondering if there's a reason to not have both. My guess is that foregoing one time transactions in favour of ensuring that people gravitate towards making a more sustainable…
I would like a onetime donation as well. Especially since there are a lot of small, usefull projects that don't need a lot of maintenance.
Re: GitHub Sponsors
#19A logical next step would be to add bounty on specific bugs or features requests. If a company is relying on open source, and has no capability to fix a critical bug (which is a bad strategy but it certainly happens), it would probably be ready to pay a hefty sum so that the maintainer, or anyone involved in the project, will have at least a look at it. Today, unless you can contact directly the maintainer and hope h…
One not-so-bad solution could be similar to what StackOverflow does: The issuer of the bounty may decide who gets it. But even if they don't issue it to anyone, they don't receive their sum back. There there currency is points, but if it's real money, any unreleased bounties could go to some kind of general community pot for that project or whole Github after a while.
Re: GitHub Sponsors
#20cool feature but putting the burden of funding on individuals vs companies is supporting what I call the "open source gig economy" - doesn't work well for Patreon and others - we need better ways to sustain individuals who choose not start their own company around open source projects or work full time at a company supporting open source https://www.aniszczyk.org/2019/03/25/troubles-with-the-open-...
> doesn't work well for Patreon and others What do you mean? What's wrong with Patreon?
"Take Patreon as an example, a popular funding platform for all sorts of things including open source projects that has been around since 2013 and has paid out $1 billion to creators since then. While that’s an astonishing figure, Patreon isn’t a sustainable business with its current private company model and level of VC funding of $105M:
“Under the company’s current business model, 90 percent of funds are paid directly to content creators. Patreon takes 5 percent, and the remaining 5 percent covers transaction fees.” Patreon CEO Jack Conte said in an interview with CNBC, that the platform will soon be facing the challenge of maintaining a profitable model as the company continues its growth.
In 2019, the company is also on track to pay out $500 million to content creators, 5% of that is $25 million and Patreon has ~300 employees, so probably not even covering their labor costs."
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/crowd-funding-platform-patre...