CurseForge.com

CurseForge

302 - Bounty program

What is the enhancement in mind? How should it look and feel?

Basically, a user could attach a certain bounty to a ticket, say $10 (or a point system or what have you). Once that ticket is resolved, whoever fixed it could claim said bounty which would go into their account.

The bounty should not be able to be claimed before the ticket is fixed and verified. The project leader should probably have to sign off on the claim (so that some schmuck doesn't make off with a bounty). There could be other checks and balances in place as well.

This could incentivize some authors (or 3rd-party authors, even) to work on bugs that people legitimately want fixed.

Some info: http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Software_bounty

User When Change
Kaelten Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:01:06 Changed status from Accepted to Declined
Torhal Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:02:23 Changed component from None to Component #15
Torhal Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:00:52 Changed assigned to from None to prencher

You must login to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register to get one!

  • 8 comments
  • Avatar of Zasurus Zasurus Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:25:47

    I do like the idea of this but it sound like it could cause fights and arguments if two people post a valid solution!
    What if one of the solution was posted first and kinda does the job but causes bugs because it was rushed to beat someone else who has taken there time to do it correctly but because they didn't get it in first don't get anything and the author has to ether do the fix the the new bug them selfs or use the second bug fix's code (the good but slow one) to fix the first one's dodgy bug quick code?

    OK negative I know but still *FIGHT* ! ;-)

    Guess it would need loads of thinking to implement...

    Zas

  • Avatar of sylvanaar sylvanaar Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:08:07

    I like this idea for testers rather than authors. We need a way to encourage people to submit good bug reports, and to help with alpha/beta testing. Or even just submiting data - like transcripts for bigwigs (just an example)

  • Avatar of Phanx Phanx Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:34:19

    This would only be relevant for a few large multi-author projects. The vast majority of WoW addons are small projects with a single author. WoW addons aren't a Linux distribution or a Mozilla browser. WoW addons, with a very few exceptions (Carbonite and the old RDX), are written and distributed for free. If you want people to use your addon, fix issues. If users want issues fixed that you can't or won't fix, they're free to use another addon or fix the issue themselves and submit a patch. I see absolutely no reason to monetize this system.

  • Avatar of Kaelten Kaelten Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:47:04

    Well there are multiple options on rewards, but it might be tied into some other upcoming services we're working on (and yes it may be possible to convert it to cash!)

    Changed status from 'New' to 'Accepted'

    WowAce.com & CurseForge.com Adminstrator
    Check out my new addon, OneChoice, it helps you pick quest rewards faster.
    Developer of Ace3, OneBag3, and many other addons and libraries
    Project lead and Mac developer for the Curse Client

  • Avatar of watchout watchout Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:11:59

    +3 good idea, though those things are generally a bit tiresome to implement...

    However, what would be the benefits of having x bounty points? I guess you won't throw in real money here?

  • Avatar of Nechckn Nechckn Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:41:35

    Some comments on this sort of system, as experienced from another "Tech" site that has a similar program.

    Be sure to have a mechanism in place where an "independent" third party receives an automated message to review tickets that have been posted, yet the project members have taken no action to validate, approve or deny, the ticket. In addition, if a proposed solution has been posted to a verified ticket, yet no award decision has been made by the original poster or the project members within a week or so, then that trusted third party should be able to take action to ensure that the people posting solutions are not unfairly treated.

    The user agreement should clearly outline the process for each participant, emphasizing that the decisions by the independent party will be weighted, assuming a good faith effort on the part of all involved, unless evidence exists to the contrary. e.g. A person posts a patch or instruction set for a verified ticket, yet no sort of response is received from the ticket's originator or project members in approximately two weeks. After a quick review, the solution seems at least possible, so the independent reviewer allows the point exchange.

    In practice:

    • Joe really, really loves his tetris-type addon, yet the most recent patch killed it. He signs onto the site and posts a help request along with a potential award of 20 points.
      • A hold is placed on Joe's 20 points until the ticket is resolved.
    • Mary, one of the mod/addon project participants, sees the ticket and is busy and knows no one else can lend a hand this week. Mary decides to hit the big "Okay" button to signify that the ticket is viable.
    • Hobbes steps up to the plate and whips up a masterful solution and posts the patch/directions.
    • Joe downloads the patch/follows the instructions and *bam* he is tetris-like gamin away while the rest of his Raid party is concentrating on downing <Insert scary boss name>.
      • Since everything was perfect, Joe rates the solution as 100% effective, he also had the options to rate the directions/patch as Partially Effective, with a 50% award, or Not Effective with no reward.
      • A Feedback text box should be provided and an entry required in order for the ticket to be "rated" by the poster.
    • During this time Mary has become ill, has decided to retire from participation, or is just plain extra busy.
    • Trusted fiduciary receives automated notice that an active ticket had a solution posted 2 weeks earlier with no action.
      • Even without knowing the details, the fiduciary authorizes the transfer of points from the person who initiated the ticket to the person who posted the patch.

    This protects everyone involved, the Admin folks are protected since they don't have to know the ins and outs of every single mod or Addon, Joe is thrilled whiling away hours playing his tetris-type game, Mary and her team can actually relax once in a while, and Hobbes is rewarded for his good-faith effort to address the issue.

    Actually, that third party could also verify tickets as viable if no action has been taken by a project participant in a week, or so, as well.

  • Avatar of Nevcairiel Nevcairiel Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:05:55

    What happens if the project leader decides to dump the submited patch and do it himself? The diff of said 3rd party author would already point him in the right direction, so its trivial to fix it himself.

    To prevent this, IMHO, the project lead should unlock certain tickets to be bounty-able, if he knows that he isnt going to fix it soon due to other focus or simple lack of time - and not allow it for all tickets in general. Like, if a user wants to set a bounty for a certain ticket, the dev can say "Aye" or "Nay" to the users request for a bounty, and only if he said "Aye" other devs see it.

  • Avatar of ckknight ckknight Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:59:52

    Updated description

  • 8 comments

Facts

Last updated on
25 Jul 2011
Reported on
23 Jun 2008
Status
Declined - We decided not to take action on this ticket.
Type
Enhancement - A change which is intended to better the project in some way
Priority
Medium - Normal priority.

Reported by

Possible assignees

Votes (Total: +26, Average: +1.5)