Grimoire

[gratipay-bot]

https://gratipay.com/grimoire/

(This application will remain open for at least a week.)

[chadwhitacre]

LGTM, @arrdem, thanks for the application. I'll be happy to approve this next week if no-one else objects.

P.S. The to-do link is 500: http://conj.io/worklist.

[arrdem]

@whit537 Oops. Thanks! Fixed that right up.

[chadwhitacre]

Thanks for the blog post, @arrdem! Mind if I respond to a couple points here? :-)

Sure I have an issue tracker and I'll gladly consider and merge changes, but at what point is someone said to have "joined" the project rather than having simply "contributed"?

That's up to you! For the Gratipay project itself, we like to invite people to "join" early on, even before their first PR in some cases (see our onboarding tickets for examples). It's also fine to reserve "joining" for contributors who have stuck around a while and have demonstrated their ongoing interest in and value to the project. The important thing from our perspective is to develop clear policies if and as your project grows.

You're right that there's a long tail of single-maintainer projects. For Gratipay we certainly don't want to require that your project have multiple maintainers. Single-maintainer projects (i.e., single-member Teams) are great! And, of course, almost all large projects start out as small projects. ;-)

As these projects are already payrolled by other ventures there is no clear reason why they should participate in an "open work" model when the majority of ongoing work is expected to be done by employees.

Yup. We don't have much to offer existing big open-source projects that already have their own funding infrastructure in place. We're hoping to support the next generation of projects, ones that aren't payrolled by other ventures, but—like Wikipedia—are supported directly by their users through voluntary payments. We're hoping that a few of the small single-maintainer Teams that join Gratipay will one day grow into large, multi-maintainer projects.

[...] direct ongoing payments or tips. You know, the model that Gratipay used to have.

We still offer direct ongoing payments, of course. :-) It's true that we now tie payments to projects instead of to individuals, but there shouldn't be much practical difference for a single-maintainer project.

[arrdem]

Ahaha I figured the chances were 50/50 that post would come back to roost :P

Yeah understood on all counts! I'll be curious to see where things settle out. Heaven knows we need better mechanisms for supporting "public infrastructure" projects and services. As noted due to being a single maintainer I guess I don't see that my work which is spread across several single maintainership projects broadly fits under the Gratipay model. Listing Grimoire here is reasonable, and maybe in time Ox will also come over here once it gets stable enough to take changes.

[chadwhitacre]

Ahaha I figured the chances were 50/50 that post would come back to roost :P

Yeah, @mattbk noticed it on Twitter and put it on the Radar at gratipay/inside.gratipay.com#348 (comment). :-)

I don't see that my work which is spread across several single maintainership projects broadly fits under the Gratipay model.

Well, there's no problem with a single "~user" owning multiple "Teams" (in our parlance). It could also work to have a single Gratipay Team that encompassed multiple software products, especially if they're conceptually related. There's room for some experimentation with the basic Gratipay 2.0 toolkit, in other words.

Anyway, thanks for giving us another shot. :-)

[mattbk]

Approved.