Role Clarification: Funders or Caretakers?

[ferment]

How deep is our role? Are we caretakers or just funding agents?

[ferment]

This question is related to bounties and what happens to the deliverables of bounties. I'm leaning toward the idea of the deliverable of a bounty should be open source and be maintained under this committee's bitbucket account as a repository. For example, say we do a bounty for an apt package, that code should be "owned" by the committee and by the community with a suitable license. So the results of the funding are always clearly visible and can be maintained past initial implementation.

[marcus03]

+1 for open source. We still need to have something in case the original contributor leaves NXT.

-1 for having things under this bitbucket account.

1.) I don't want to regulate people how they open source things. As long as they deliver, I'm fine with it. 2.) The committees won't be there forever, so I don't see much sense in pilling up things here. 3.) We should not burden ourselves with managing the deliverables.

[EvilDave]

Open source, absolutely yes. +1

We are funding agents. Maybe we will need (NXT we, not INF-Com we) to set up a repository(ies) for all code created by the community, but that should really be dealt with by the community as a whole, and set up as a completely seperate entity from the committees.

Watch out for mission creep here, guys, we have enough on our hands just figuring out how to monitor network health, we don't need more semi-unrelated responsibilties.

[Ian Ravenscroft]

yep... agree we should specify the criteria to be met to get the fund... once its met then we pay and the criteria should mean we have no liability after they are met and we have paid.

[ferment]

I don't necessarily disagree with it being out of our mission. I suppose as long as the licensing is correct, someone can fork the repo's and maintain them if the original authors take the NXT and run after delivering.

How about I close this issue and create one for determining general specs for for bounties like OSS license, publishing to bitbucket, etc?

[marcus03]

@ferment: Go ahead.

Do we have a decision on this one?

[Ian Ravenscroft]

So in summary - we are funding agents and we only fund open source - committee does not acquire any 'assets' on behalf of the community....

should we vote - 3+ votes and we close it?

[marcus03]

Define what you want us to vote for.

[Ian Ravenscroft]

So the summary of the thread seems to be;

"We are funders, we ensure that we fund the creation / establishment of open source / public assets that benefit NXT - but we are NOT caretakers and therefore we don't fund proposals in a way which would cause this committee to have an ongoing liability i.e. Caretaker..."

Does that clarify it?

[marcus03]

Yes and voted. :-)

[ChuckOne]

Yes.

[EvilDave]

And a yes from me....

[marcus03]

Closed (can be reopened if someone sees the need) and documented in the Wiki.