[FFmpeg-devel] Sovereign Tech Fund

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le torstaina 1. helmikuuta 2024, 19.59.14 EET Anton Khirnov a écrit :
> > Why should i suddenly do something different ?
> > I did it for 100% free back then
> > and here it wouldnt even make sense, closing false positives also
> > counts as resolved. Its less work even to get 70USD ;)
> 
> What's with this hurt-feelings tone? You ASKED people to comment on the
> proposals, so I asked a question. You can just answer it, no need to get
> all emotional about it. I don't stalk you or your commits, why do you
> expect me to know that you worked on such issues "long ago"? I don't
> even know one can close coverity issues manually.
> 
> What I do know is that I've seen similar initiatives run into this
> pathology in the past, hence my question.

Yeah, well there are two sides to this issue.

The obvious one is that it reviewing code takes time and is not exactly the 
most rewarding job. This is especially true for reviewing dull issues like 
Coverity's, but it is generally true.

The lesser obvious flip-side is that somebody should also review the handling 
of Coverity issues, even those that end up marked as "False positive" or 
"Intentional".

This gets even worse if everybody knows that someone else is paid. Then the 
incentive to review on one's free time gets even lower in my experience. I 
don't know how to address that paradox generally speaking, but I do think that 
bug triaging, bug fixing and code review should be paid per hour, not per bug 
report (and I count Coverity issues as a type of bug reports).

This is not just theoretical. I have actually previously worked in an 
organisation that paid contractors per bug as a unit, and of course people 
gamed the system to get paid more with little extra work.

-- 
雷米‧德尼-库尔蒙
http://www.remlab.net/