David T. Lewis wrote:

>On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 04:27:16PM +0200, Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
>  
>
>>Craig Latta a ?crit :
>>
>>    
>>
>>>     Of course, our situation as a community is inherently and
>>>unavoidably political, the scarce resource being the time that people
>>>can spend on Squeak development. I have participated in this community
>>>for its entire existence. I have seen heated exchanges over whose work
>>>should be "accepted", without money at stake. I think the situation is
>>>very likely to be worse if money is involved. It is unclear to everyone
>>>(including Stef, as far as I can tell) which projects are worthy of
>>>bounties, how large each bounty should be, and how preferred submissions
>>>should be chosen. Any one of these ambiguities invites disaster.
>>>      
>>>
>>I don't understand this concern about money. After all money is just the
>> exchange unit used in our world to get work done.
>>The free software communities has been using it at a lot, probably I
>>should even wrote the free software communities is  using it as much as
>>it can. The FSF is using it to support and develop its software, Linux
>>is largely supported that way, and Squeak has been largely developed
>>with money.
>>
>>So really I don't see the concern about money injected by SqF to support
>>Squeak improvement. This is really what is needed.
>>Looks like odd concerns.
>>    
>>
>
>It certainly would be nice to see people receive some financial
>recognition, but I really don't know how the board would be able
>to accomplish this without pissing somebody off.  A strong benevolent
>dictator would be required, and we do not have that.  The board was
>wise to steer clear of the issue.
>  
>
A dictator would be a problem. Perhaps a "respected influencer" would be 
a better term.

I agree with Hilaire - money is not the problem. It's how it's managed.

brad