Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2010
Nicholas Clark wrote: >Sadly, I don't see it as unnecessary, because we're still acquiring new bugs >(well, newly reported bugs) faster than 1 Dave can fix them. > >Sadly, also, I don't have any good suggestions on how to fix this, More Daves. There are other core developers whose time could be purchased. Doesn't scale indefinitely, of course, but I expect you could get a linear response from spending up to ten times as much money. How much bugfixing could *you* do, for example, if you didn't have to do anything else for your salary? From an economics point of view: the current allocation of human resources is globally inefficient. An efficient allocation would have the best Perl core hackers working primarily on the Perl core, but instead they're mostly employed on things other than the core. We have a classic case of the public goods problem. (Free software is much closer to the ideal of a public good than any physical good can be.) Spending sponsor money on Dave is the beginning of an attempt to fix the market failure. Scaling it up is an obvious next step. (I have an obvious interest here: I'm pretty pissed off about the long-term market failure around the application of my labour, and I'd be very happy to end up with an arrangement that let me hack for CPAN or the Perl core full-time.) -zeframThread Previous | Thread Next