Production Alliance
- KVRAF
- 4956 posts since 4 Aug, 2006 from Helsinki
All new initiatives are wellcome. If nothing else, it signals to parties that there are problems.
I just wonder how willingly the developers change their present systems and practicies?
I just wonder how willingly the developers change their present systems and practicies?
- KVRAF
- 3210 posts since 31 Dec, 2004 from People's Republic of Minnesota
I don't see too many developers agreeing to strict rules, especially with the potential chaotic development process (unforeseen delays, possible conflicts that can't be resolved without serious framework modification, platform support. How do you decide which formats to develop? How many Mac or Linux users need to be on board before supporting them? As a Mac user I wouldn't invest in a software company or alliance that doesn't already support it. What if additional developers are required (as deemed by the primary developer)? Who decides? Who approves? If they need to raise fees, who decides that? If you vote for absolutely every single decision it's going to get old really fast and it will ultimately impede development progress.
There are too many holes in this paradigm...far more than I'm able to write in an afternoon.
There are too many holes in this paradigm...far more than I'm able to write in an afternoon.
-
- KVRian
- 574 posts since 1 Jan, 2013 from Denmark
Management, maintenance, updates, software licenses/seats, production environments, testing procedures, servers (= more staff, maintenance), Q/A..?
The idea is not bad per se, it just doesn't seem realistic and it doesn't seem that appealing from a developer perspective.. Which is the foundation of the idea. Developers are also people that enjoy the prospects and benefits of stable jobs - assuming you largely don't consider hobby programmers that probably don't have the capacity to indulge in such projects.
If you actually implement beforementioned points, you basically just created a stock company.
The idea is not bad per se, it just doesn't seem realistic and it doesn't seem that appealing from a developer perspective.. Which is the foundation of the idea. Developers are also people that enjoy the prospects and benefits of stable jobs - assuming you largely don't consider hobby programmers that probably don't have the capacity to indulge in such projects.
If you actually implement beforementioned points, you basically just created a stock company.
- KVRAF
- 3210 posts since 31 Dec, 2004 from People's Republic of Minnesota
Agreed. I didn't use the stock company analogy because it could be argued that no one member is a major shareholder and it's basically every member with 1 vote. It sounds great in a democracy fantasy setting, but in reality it would be nothing more than an administrative nightmare for the developers. I would never go for it if I were a developer.Mayae wrote:If you actually implement beforementioned points, you basically just created a stock company.
-
- KVRAF
- 2256 posts since 29 May, 2012
Aren't the current models (whether it is one time payment or subscription) already that? What happens somebody buys a old moog (cost: I guess a "bit" more expensive than a current production arturia), studies it (learn theory, buy scopes, time=money), develop a prototype (time=money), optimize it(time=money), eventually divides the total cost to an estimate of potential number of buyers and adds some profit. The same thing.Also I suggest that the entire due system is based on X dollars / N members.
~stratum~
-
- KVRAF
- 2256 posts since 29 May, 2012
Hi Vertion, perhaps your idea has some merit, but many developers have some alergy to large corporations, because they have some alergy to what is often called "team work". Human resources departments and head hunters may not like these guys, because they think they are somewhat asocial, but they miss the point and will probably never understand it. You'll probably understand what I mean, since you too seem to be a software developer.
~stratum~