Re: Supporting LilyPond development financially

[Janek Warchoł]

Hi friends,

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:54 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>Janek wrote:
>> Imagine that next month David receives 10 times the money
>> he usually gets: we'd have David covered for next ~10 months,
>
> More like the next 6 months. [snip explanation]

ok, i'm fine with that.
And i definitely didn't mean to say "let's give David only enough
money so that he won't starve"!


On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Graham Percival
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 08:25:56PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> I think that there is 100% approval that you *do* such a huge amount
>> of work.  And you should be payed for that IMHO.
>
> I have problems with the second sentence -- nothing personal,
> just a general reluctance to support any statement of the form
> "X should be paid for Y" without further qualifications.

I have an impression that we interpret the word "should" slightly different.
I *suppose* Werner meant "David's work is worth being paid for, it would
be good if David received payment for work".

>On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 01:30:58PM -0800, Jim Long wrote:
>> I think that there is 100% agreement that David should continue
>> to work on LilyPond.
>
> With my previous paragraph in mind, I disagree; thus there is not
> 100\% agreement.

Again, i *suppose* that Jim meant something slightly different, more
like "I think that there is 100% agreement that we would like David to
continue developing LilyPond."

Anyway, i suggest not to continue discussing the subtleties of the
word "should" (and any moral obligations that might be implied by this
word) *using email*.  I'm afraid discussing this via email can easily
cause misunderstandings and conflict; i strongly recommend using a
voice chat for that purpose and i'll gladly join any chat you'd like
to have this weekend.

best wishes,
Janek

PS i'll send a separate email concerning the "sponsoring" page.