Andreas wrote:
 
 > Ken Causey wrote:
 > Now of course you and others have offered bounties as such a form.  I
> think bounties represent a wholly artificial form of return that, even
> if succesful, cannot be self-sustaining.  What I mean is that a bounty
> is a form of coercion meant to influence the current path of development
> in a direction for which there is not otherwise sufficient interest for
> the development to occur without said bounty, then when the bounty ends
> development will falter.  At worst this could result in pushing Squeak
> in a direction so far away from where the community, as a whole, wants
> to be that it kills the community.

>> +10. There is significant danger if money is thrown some way because 
>> "Squeak ought to do X, Y, or Z" without sustained support in the community.

 I understand this in the context of using squeakfoundation funds for bounty..  because the community who contributed those assets have a vested interest in how they are used.
 
 But, for private interests, what's the difference between someone building something in Squeak with their own skills vs. their own money + someone elses skills.  In either case, its just a piece of "motivation" or energy toward an end that goes through Squeak.
 
 Who's to stop anyone from doing it and what is the threat to the community?  If some business manager wants to offer to pay someone to build an interface to Oracle is everyone suddenly going to feel extra-compelled to use Oracle?  I doubt it.  Everyone will continue to do what they're inclined to do, and I can't imagine a more natural driving force than that.
 
  - Chris