Proposal for a ‘Facilitator Bounty’

I posted this idea in this topic
I’m hoping the lack of response there, apart from Steve, is that most people won’t have seen it there.

In response to Steve explaining about some of the problems ROOL are facing I wrote:

“I don’t think it could be read that way, but to avoid any doubt. None of the following is meant as a criticism of anyone. ROOL and their volunteers are doing a great job. It is the increasing uptake/returning users and programmers to RISC OS that is causing the problems:-)

I can well imagine just how time consuming many of admin and day to day running of ROOL must be and I can see how frustrating it must be for Steve and the other volunteers.
I think many RISC OS users will be able to understand that it is limiting the progress of RISC OS significantly. Having code submissions not dealt with quickly is not going to encourage programmers.

So I suggest a new ‘Facilitator bounty’ to pay Steve or another of the core team to do some of this work.
Once the bounty has reached a worthwhile enough amount for say one or more days paid work it could be claimed. And the bounty reset. (it would be nice if say a running total of paid days work could be kept)

I’m not sure how practical it is for one of the core team to take a day here and a day there from their main work, but I suspect it is doable.

Whilst bounties for specific software can be very useful. I think many RISC OS users can see that paying someone to do the admin and help co-ordinate the volunteers will help RISC OS significantly.

Most of the RISC OS programming that has been added to the CVS over the last year has been done by people who have not sought payment (thanks very much guys) So paying someone to facilitate more of that and the general admin seems to me to be the most efficient way of helping RISC OS progress.

‘Facilitator Bounty’ is the best name I could think of, if someone can think of a better one I won’t sulk!

Sorry if this is a bit rambling, words are not my forte!"

If this is a bounty you would be able to get behind please respond, I think it could have a significant impact for the development of RISC OS!

I think what Steve was tactfully suggesting (and I saw it, I use Recent Posts) was that some people might not appreciate the idea of doing the coding work unpaid whilst somebody else gets paid to deal with it¹.
Somebody needs to do the crappy boring admin stuff, and if there isn’t enough manpower around ROOL then maybe the only option to prevent them drowning in all the activity is to take on some help? How this might sit with current/potential volunteers, however, is another thing entirely, especially given that it is possible that a paid employee (even at minimum wage) could wipe out the bounty allocations in no time. And then what? It is clearly not a good situation, but I do not see a “facilitator bounty” as improving things for some of the reasons I outline above.
Might I suggest you read Steve’s reply to you again?

As Steve replied to me, a lot of the volunteer-able work had already been delegated, but there is still a lot they need to do themselves. It is my hope that maybe this could be reorganised for better sharing of tasks. But, as with the pay-or-not-pay question, who is going to want to spend time looking at messing with the list of outstanding tasks when they could be doing those tasks?

Maybe we ought to make a little pinkie promise here – us. If any of us should win a decent amount on the lottery (whatever ones we may play), set aside a decent donation to ROOL to help grease the wheels a little and get things moving. Okay, this might sound airy-fairy nonsense, but the only reason I don’t have much of a hope of winning Euromillions is because the bloody Brits keep on winning it! ;-)

¹ Isn’t that basically the definition of an agent?

To simplify things and focus on the main point, I removed the controversial suggestion in my repost about reallocating bounty money.

Regarding Steve doubts as to if the community could ‘employ’ someone even part time, then yes there are certainly big doubts. I was thinking though that maybe a bounty could raise enough every so often to pay for a days paid work, one or two days a month? I think some of the ROOL core team are not salaried but work on a contract basis and therefore might be able to take up one or a few days work a month. Even just two extra full days a month work would I think make a significant difference.

So this proposal relies on someone at ROOL being able to accept a days paid work now and again AND community support.
From the lack of responses so far maybe I’m wrong in thinking the later probable:-(

Re winning the lottery, personally I’d have to have the money to enter in the first place:-)

Another alternative might be a bequest!

As Steve replied to me, a lot of the volunteer-able work had already been delegated, but there is still a lot they need to do themselves. It is my hope that maybe this could be reorganised for better sharing of tasks. But, as with the pay-or-not-pay question, who is going to want to spend time looking at messing with the list of outstanding tasks when they could be doing those tasks?

There are two thoughts that spring from this:
1. What is the task list
2. Who is allocated what

From 1 if no one knows what needs to be done (broken up not big block sweeping categories) then how can anyone judge whether it could be farmed out?
Obviously there is always the reluctance to let go factor we all suffer from.

From 2 – if people don’t know who to send queries etc to then the wrong person getting things will delay stuff and occupy time that could be spent on other things.

Essentially, first define current state and the scope of the problem, only then can you start to choose a direction and a solution to get there.

There are two thoughts that spring from this:
1. What is the task list

Elsewhere:

I updated my ROOL ToDo list a couple of weeks ago, focussing on the stuff I need to get done by early June.

2. Who is allocated what

Elsewhere:

I think we’ve pretty much reached the limit of how much we can sub-divide the stuff we already do amongst volunteers

;-)

But yes, it is a good point. Knowing exactly what needs to be done defines the size of the mountain, and the job of knowing who can best do such-.and-such a job is a tricky one. Any number of people can get it wrong. Not so many can get it right.

But yes, it is a good point. Knowing exactly what needs to be done defines the size of the mountain, and the job of knowing who can best do such-.and-such a job is a tricky one. Any number of people can get it wrong. Not so many can get it right.

Indeed, and some of my best insights have come when someone has asked me to explain what I’d already done.
No factual input from them, just the simple act of thinking in enough detail to be able to explain the situation made me realise I hadn’t fully grasped the situation.

Any number of people can question “why is x so?” but only if they can see the situation. Their comments may, or may not be useful in of themselves, more likely is that the comments will spur thought.

FWIW my entirely informal and semi-chaotic behaviour wrt this has been to simply send an occasional donation to ROOL on the basis that they can do as they wish with it! :-) From my POV I don’t care if they spend it on a ‘works outing’, or to pay someone to do useful work that volunteers prefer not to do, or lack the skills for. I’m prepared to trust their judgement. Not as if I have a million quid to give them, alas.

All that said, I’ll bear in mind whatever emerges from discussions of this topic. But in the interim I just suggest the Bob Geldof approach for those not able to do the work directly. “Give us your [expletive deleted] money!” 8-]

Jim

I have the impression that the bounty ‘RISC OS General’ is already here for this. Just need to talk more about it (and perhaps before the other bounties), this way: 1/ gives to ROOL, then 2/ participate in USB/Paint/etc. bounties.

An oblique point. I am reminded of a story I read somewhere: A children’s nursery wanted to discourage those few parents who failed to pick up their kids promptly at closing time, so they decided to charge those who arrived late.

The result was that more parents returned tardily than before the fine was introduced. It seems that shame is a stronger motivator than cost.

To put it another way, however put-upon Steve et al are at the moment, I wonder how they would be treated if they were apparently being paid for doing whatever anyone wanted doing… now… get on with it… <rage>.