Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub Sponsors

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 516 posts

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#341

Post by dawhizkid »

kodablah wrote: post #192

This is such a watershed moment in the history of software development that I don't think most of us can grasp its significance yet. Sure we're familiar with other services that do the same, but the adoption rate (like for GH itself) will be clearly different. One could argue that this is more societally important than YouTube, Twitch, etc funded content for _consuming_ because this funds content for _leveraging_ to…

The big unknown here is that the MVP is sponsoring individual contributors vs an entire project. Of course it is technically easier to build, and removes GitHub from having to build logic or tools on how to divide contributions fairly among contributors, but it opens up questions on perceived fairness among contributors to a given project e.g. what happens when one contributor, for whatever reason, receives far more contributions than another equal contributor? Will that lead to infighting, jealousy, turnover, lawsuits, loss of motivation?

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#342

Post by whatever_dude »

mherrmann wrote: post #229
devonzuegel wrote: post #158

Hi, I’m Devon the product manager behind GitHub Sponsors. We’re excited to launch the beta program today and learn how we can best serve the community. It’s great to already see the conversation on this thread! We’re eager to hear all of your feedback, and feel free to email me at devonzuegel@github.com as well.

Hi Devon, I posted this comment elsewhere in this thread [1], but now feel that here is a better place to write it: It would be very cool if there was an easy way to sponsor all the projects I've starred. Then I could just pay (say) $10 per month to "support open source", without having to worry about any of the details such as picking projects. If you as GitHub then also reach out to the project maintainers and say…

This is interesting, but it raises questions, mainly: if a project is abandoned and you've still given it a star, does it continue to send money to it? Will it cause people to un-star projects?

I could see having some kind of "tip amount" per project that gets taken from a pool would make a lot of sense, but not as stars.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#343

Post by rtempaccount1 »

patcon wrote: post #338

This is NOT about helping us out, fellow maintainer-kids, it's about owning the playground and burning the forest. This fee structure is predatory af & straight outta amazon's playbook. (2x matching funds and all fees waived for first year?[1]) There has been an ecosystem. If this was about anything except market capture through burning VC/reserve funding, GitHub would have engaged in existing nacent and experimental…

Can I ask where you're getting that info. on the fee structure, I can't see that on their pages easily.

From reading the FAQ it sounds like there are no fees in the first year at all and afterwards it's a payment processing fee?

Also I got the impression that matching was Github adding additional funds to the payment, sounds like not a bad thing really?

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#344

Post by diggan »

stephenr wrote: post #306
diggan wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hello there Devon! I'd be interested to hear what the main reasons for not either a) building on top of existing open platforms (like OpenCollective) or b) doing your own service but building it open source and as a open platform? Also, once the one year period is over, how are you planning to setup the fee structure?

> doing your own service but building it open source and as a open platform Why would they ever do this? Practically nothing they do is Open Source.

Well, they trying to put themselves in the middle of open source. Why wouldn't they, if they really care about their users, not just getting profits?

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#345

Post by cush »

mushufasa wrote: post #5

This seems like it's needed and (dareisay) overdue? Integrating sponsorship subscriptions into the core experience is sure to increase payments, a la twitch subscriptions/payments (which Youtube is just now copying). I imagine this will change the fundamental dynamics around OSS projects, but not sure how, nor whether it is all positive. - If maintainers can see who donated, do they prioritize issues / pull requests?…

> If maintainers can see who donated, do they prioritize issues / pull requests? (I think that could be a good thing actually).

This is one step away from consumers being able to put bug bounties on issues too

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#346

Post by bearcobra »

rossdavidh wrote: post #331
benatkin wrote: post #209

Not so fast. People have said this about gittip (now Gratipay), Patreon, Twitch, and now YouTube and Facebook. All of these have been mixed blessings. Here's an article about how Patreon doesn't work out even when everything goes smoothly: https://theoutline.com/post/2571/no-one-makes-a-living-on-pa... "After launching my Patreon, I struggled for months to find work. Patreon filled my downtime, and became a full time…

I have seen shifts from Youtube to Patreon as the primary means of support (Adpocalypse), so I'm surprised you list Youtube as a successor to Patreon instead of the other way around. Patreon by no means should be expected to guarantee you find backers. They (and services like them) make it easy to concentrate on your content/creation, and less on the nitty-gritty details of how to collect your patrons' money. That do…

I've observed a bit of a shift from YouTube Ads => Patreon => YouTube Sponsorship/Membership as the main way some of the creators I follow support themselves, so that might be why it was listed as the successor.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#347

Post by el_cujo »

xwdv wrote: post #280

I don’t like this. There has always been a purity around writing open source software simply for the benefit of mankind. Let’s not kid ourselves, probably no one is going to make a living from github sponsors, and projects that bring in any significant money are probably written by developers who already make good money do something else anyway. This would basically be beer money to them. You would be amazed at how p…

Agree with everything you're saying, I really am surprised at how overwhelmingly positive the response has been for the most part on hacker news. I really don't see 99% of OSS project contributors making money from this, let alone enough money to make a living, but it's hard for me to interpret the response as much less than delusion.

People are probably going to get jealous/upset if they find out other contributors are getting more donations than them, especially if they feel their project/contributions are inferior to their own. A lot of people are suggesting they change things to make it so you donate to projects instead of individuals, but I feel this would be even worse. The politics of open source projects can already be big head aches, but throw money into the mix and it will get even worse, as someone will have to decide how to divide things up, and then we might get into a situation where people refuse to even contribute to a project unless they're guaranteed some sort of payment for their contribution.

It's obviously still a little early to be completely shitting on the idea, none of us really know what's going to happen, I just think everyone needs to temper the excitement a bit and take a moment for a reality check.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#348

Post by dopeboy »

devonzuegel wrote: post #158

Hi, I’m Devon the product manager behind GitHub Sponsors. We’re excited to launch the beta program today and learn how we can best serve the community. It’s great to already see the conversation on this thread! We’re eager to hear all of your feedback, and feel free to email me at devonzuegel@github.com as well.

Devon, as a contributor to a major open source project, this is really really awesome news. Thanks for all the hard work on it.

In lieu of helping out OSS, your CEO put out a proposal awhile back about offering desk space to contributors of OSS [0]. Is this still in consideration?

[0] - https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1103919494894772226

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#349

Post by buro9 »

devonzuegel wrote: post #133
buro9 wrote: post #36

I run community sites for which I am paid donations to cover running costs including writing code, bug fixes, servers, etc. Today I take donations via PayPal, but the catch with this is that it's hard to provide visibility to donors of how healthy this is (WRT to costs), and whilst I considered Patreon that seemed to be very focused on creative deliverables to donors of a non-code/service nature. I am trying Browser…

Hey, Devon here. :) > The only question I have is how easy it would be for those who don’t use Github to subscribe to a recurring donation? Thanks for the question buro9! All it takes to become a sponsor is an email address and payment method. Our goal is to make sponsorships as friction-free as possible. Re: individual/repo/org question, GitHub Sponsors is launching small and simple, and as we learn from the initial…

Well feel free to enable my GH account... @buro9 there too (verified by https://keybase.io/buro9 )

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#350

Post by SyneRyder »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #253
derefr wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who’s making a living on Patreon? The same people who make a living on Kickstarter, or via “gift” transfers through PayPal (before that was clamped down upon): people who can pull in whale patrons/backers. Certain verticals have more whale patrons than others. The common story is that if you’re an artist and you want to go where the whale patrons are, that’s—for some reason—art targeting the furry subculture. That’s…

I patronize several people who literally make their living on Patreon (and YouTube), and it doesn't look like "whales" are necessary. Take LGR: currently making just over $6k/mo on pateron which is $72k/year, or $68k with an assumed 5% cut for Patreon. Depending on where you live that's already a reasonable income for a single person household, and he presumably makes some YouTube money on top of that. That money com…

I was friends in high school with someone who now makes a full-time income from Patreon. It absolutely can be done.

That said, it isn't their only source of income. They do live shows all around the world, in-person meetups (also around the world), sell books & DVDs and manage an online store. They work extremely hard, travel a lot & are extremely passionate about what they do.

[I have no special insight into their success, but I would guess that mastering social skills and relentlessly doing in-person meetups & meeting people after shows is part of it. They are definitely not hiding behind a laptop keyboard. I know I'm personally more likely to support a musician I've met and have a personal connection with.]

Post reply on HN