Re: Idea for pearweb

Hi, Jesus M. Castagnetto wrote:

--- Michael Bretterklieber <mbretter@jawa.at> wrote: [...snip..]

I think the system with the wishlists is ok, but it needs more PR. I don't think that any user who has downloaded a very useful package buys the developer a thing from his wishlist, only if he has problems or if he needs support maybe then he is willing to buy something.

Hmm. If the author is going to provide paid support for a particular package (and that does not contradict the license used in said package), then that should be explicitely indicated in the package documentation, IMHO. I am not sure if people are contributing packages to PEAR with the expectation to get something out of it, apart from the satisfaction of knowing that people find their code useful, and having users submit code improvements and suggestions. At least in my case, money or gifts are not the reason, perhaps is my scientific education bias. I contribute my code to PEAR just for fun. For me its enough to know that other people use my packages.

If I misunderstood the reasons why we are contributing to the PEAR effort, and why PEAR was started, I would like to be corrected and clarified. That way I will be better able to evaluate my position and my contributions to the repository. It is a different story in a pay per requested code system, which is not what PEAR is about (I think). That's why there are places like "Google Answers", or www.elance.com, or the sites listed in http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Open_Source/Program_Contracting/

Maybe we can add a second way for providing support. The user must buy something from the wishlist of the developer for getting this type of support, but then he has guaranteed support within 24 hours or something like that.

-1 for that idea. This will no longer make PEAR a repository of reusable code in the spirit of CPAN, Starship Python, or CTAN. If a developer feels the need to get compensation out of his/her efforts, then there are other avenues or he/she can create its own repository that explicitely indicates that the code will be supported only on a paid basis. Forcing people to give money or other material contributions to an author is not a "good thing" (TM) IMNSHO. I'd rather not use a piece of code that forces me to do that or dangles such a clause as a Damocles sword over my head. After all, if you want you code to be really useful, put it out to the scrutiny of your peers. May idea was not to have only a per pay support system, it should be only a second chance

of getting support. If there are urgent problems, then this system can used. My company was in exactly such situation: We discovered crashes of the php-apache module under Solaris using the oci8 extension. I filed a bug report, but we couldn't get any solution. Our customer was realy angry, and therefore we asked Thies Arntzen, if he can focus his work and that problem, so we hired him, it was not cheap, but after 2 1/2 hours he found the problem, and everbody was happy. I think its enough if in the pear-docu somewhere is a hint that's also possible to hire a maintainer if there are problems. bye, -- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------- Michael Bretterklieber - Michael.Bretterklieber@jawa.at JAWA Management Software GmbH - http://www.jawa.at Liebenauer Hauptstr. 200 -------------- privat --------------- A-8041 GRAZ GSM: ++43-(0)676-93 96 698 Tel: ++43-(0)316-403274-12 E-mail: michael@bretterklieber.com Fax: ++43-(0)316-403274-10 http://www.bretterklieber.com ------------------------------- ------------------------------------- "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..." - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972