Louis-Philippe Véronneau <po...@debian.org> writes: > On 2021-03-22 16 h 43, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: >> Le vendredi, 19 mars 2021, 17.49:54 h CET Louis-Philippe Véronneau a écrit : >>> On 2021-03-19 08 h 02, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >>>>> I've been telling a few people last month that I would really liked to >>>>> have an Enterprise Edition Online MiniDebConf, unfortunately I don't >>>>> have any time/energy to instigate that currently. >>>> >>>> Something for a Debian fellow that we could hire ;-) >>> >>> I for one would be less motivated to help with videoteam tasks if I knew >>> someone was paid to organise a miniconf. >> >> Would your motivation also be affected if an individual was paid only for a >> specific task that noone in the team found particularily interesting to do? >> >> (I don't know much about how the videoteam works, so I don't know if that's >> a >> good example, but let's see…) For example, what if someone (paid) handled >> the >> storage and timely shipping of all the hardware, as well as the actual >> ordering of new hardware, leaving the (what I assume is the more interesting >> part) configuring, design and conception of the system to volunteers? > > I'm not opposed to paid labor per-say. I think the previous examples of > Debian paying TOs to do accounting is a good one. > > So to answer your question, I wouldn't be opposed if we contracted an > enterprise to handle our gear for us. > > I don't think it's something particularly fun to do and I see that more > as an administrative task, akin to accounting. > > "Organising a miniconf" isn't though.
Is there a fundamental difference between paying someone to do "non-fun administrative tasks" like accounting, and paying someone to help out with orphaned/RFA'd packages (cf. Christian Kastner's recent "How to motivate contributors to work on QA" question)? It seems to me, to some extent, that a package that is orphaned or RFA'd is per definition "not fun enough" for a volunteer to work on. Best, Gard
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
