On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Lou Logan wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, at 9:39 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > and i would suggest we consider setting up some bug bounties for these > > 151 ? regressions or a subset of them. This may help to draw more > > interrest towards them ... > > Getting off-topic here, but I think some of the donated funds should be used > for bounties. Otherwise, as far as I know, it seems to be mostly used for > conference travel/lodging reimbursement. > > The downside is when money is involved things can get complicated. Who > decides which bugs/feature requests get a bounty? How do we determine how > much each bounty is worth? Can the same person who is involved a bounty > decision also claim the same bounty?
I would suggest a simple rule that requires no decission maker and that self adjusts the value. If we assume that simple, nonsense or duplicate tickets will get fixed/closed quickly then it would be reasonable to assume that the age of a ticket is proportional to its difficulty. Also waiting does not work in this form to drive price up as waiting includes the risk that someone else will fix it. A simple dumb rule could be that we pay X cent per day of age of a ticket from when it was opened and had a reproducable testcase (not newly created) to when it is closed. Payment would be to the author of the change fixing it (if teh author wants to be paid) Also there can still be a safe guard in here for example all payment could require to be approved individually the public ML. So if someone found a way to game the system people could still object to the payment. > > VideoLAN offers bounties (including some on libavcodec), but I don't know the > details of how it is implemented. Out of pure efficiency (laziness) maybe we > can copy what they do. > > https://wiki.videolan.org/Bounties/ I would suggest not to require prior "registration" but rather whoever fixed it has the right to request payment within some reasonable time like 3 months after the fix is pushed With bugs its not always clear how complex a fix is. So requireing "contact first" could lead to some annoying grab-ungrab cycles on bugs and to people fixing a bug and then not getting the payment because they missed the contacting first thing. I think the risk for 2 people fixing the same bug at the same time (which then also needs to have been open since a long time to matter) feels like it would be a rare occurance The disadvantage here is of course that with a tiny bounty from the first day and no pre-registration some peole will be eligible for payment of a few cent which could be unpractical/annoying maybe a minimum of 100 euro per payout or so could fix this Thanks [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms. -- Aristotle
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
