| 1 |
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 9:01 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 8:32 PM Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 9:07 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> - Host a bug-bounty program. |
| 8 |
>> This would need to be restricted to critical bugs. Otherwise, it would drain the foundation treasury very quickly. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> ++ |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> We also would need to restrict this to non-developers, again to avoid draining the treasury. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Uh, how does it drain the treasury less if we pay the same amount of |
| 15 |
> money to a non-dev vs a dev? Wouldn't that actually discourage |
| 16 |
> regular contributors from becoming devs, and potentially drive us to |
| 17 |
> have to pay for more bounties since less stuff is getting fixed for |
| 18 |
> free? |
| 19 |
Fair point. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Bounties would have to be limited to what we really need and can |
| 22 |
> afford, but once you've gotten that far then there is really no reason |
| 23 |
> to restrict who can apply for them. The goal is to fix the bug, |
| 24 |
> right? |
| 25 |
I was concerned that people might end up getting paid for things that they would do anyway, but I guess if we are careful with what qualifies, then that would be okay. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> -- |
| 28 |
> Rich |
| 29 |
> |
Archives