ReactOS Fundraising 2012

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: ReactOS Fundraising 2012

Post by Z98 »

No one here has presented anything that could be construed as hard numbers to back up their assertions, all I can see are a bunch of opinions on both sides. As such, do not be surprised if the assertions raised are dismissed by people disagreeing, since when an argument is based purely upon personal opinion, each side will automatically place a greater value in their own opinion above the opinion of the other side.

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: ReactOS Fundraising 2012

Post by Webunny »

Z98 wrote:No one here has presented anything that could be construed as hard numbers to back up their assertions, all I can see are a bunch of opinions on both sides. As such, do not be surprised if the assertions raised are dismissed by people disagreeing, since when an argument is based purely upon personal opinion, each side will automatically place a greater value in their own opinion above the opinion of the other side.

I actually agree with that claim, at least in principle. It's difficult - more so for some than others - to differentiate ones' own opinions from facts.

Note, however, that I at least provided a reference to a researchpaper in regard to my claim that rearranging the donors according to (the hight of) donations will augment it, as it creates an sociological 'standing' within the peer group of donators. This, at least, is not some mere opinion. I didn't give any collaborative evidence for my claim it would be good to lower the donationbar, true. But apart from 'evidence', one can also look at the merit of an argument by logically analysing it, and look at the consistency of the reasoning.

For instance, the other poster says: you better off to ask for what you need, not what you can get. Sounds good, but one has to consider there is no actual absolute number where the 'need' is met. The more money one gets, the more devs one can hire, it's that simple. Given that fact, let's assume the former poster was right, for arguments' sake. If it really would be true that the more you ask, the more you get, then, obviously, one should immediately ask for one trillion euro's. Even if only a fraction would be reached, according to that theory, you would still get vastly more than when you ask for 30000 euro. But I think we can all see that this is a flawed reasoning: if it would truly hold its ground, everyone would long since be asking for gigantic amounts of money. Clearly it doesn't quite work like that, or any project in financial trouble could simply ask for a hunderdfold of their sponsoring, which would then increase their revenue (at least to a point where it exeeds anything they got previously).

So, while I agree hard numbers are the best thing to susbtantiate an opion, one can already discern some contradictions (and thus the lack of validity) in a certain reasoning or argumentation with pure logic too.

DOSGuy
Posts: 582
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:55 pm
Contact:

Re: ReactOS Fundraising 2012

Post by DOSGuy »

That's called taking an argument to its most absurd extreme. Let's analyse what I actually said.

If you ask for too little and achieve your goal, donations will probably stop. That's kind of obvious, isn't it? If the goal has been achieved, they clearly don't need any more donations. If we ask for 5000 euros, we'll probably only get 5000 euros. If we ask for a trillion euros, that doesn't guarantee that we'll get a trillion euros, but it does mean that donations won't stop if we make it to 5000 euros. If you set the bar too low, you'll only get that amount.

Webunny wrote:For instance, the other poster says: you better off to ask for what you need, not what you can get. Sounds good, but one has to consider there is no actual absolute number where the 'need' is met. The more money one gets, the more devs one can hire, it's that simple.
Right, but is it possible to hire half a developer? The problem is that no one has told us how the 30 000 euros will actually be spent. If the plan is to hire three developers for 10 000 euros each, then it's true that we can hire only one or two developers if we fall short of the goal. But what if the plan only works if we get 30 000 euros because, for instance, we're hiring a single developer? I suppose we could hire someone part-time instead of full-time, but if the goal is to hire a single, full-time developer with this money, the campaign is clearly a failure if we're not able to do that. One of the problems with this campaign is that, to the best of my knowledge, we've been given no breakdown of how the money will be spent, or what will happen if we get less than 30 000 euros. If we fall short, will the money be spent on less ambitious goals, or will it be added to the ReactOS Fundraising 2013 campaign, and it will keep rolling over until we get the 30 000 euros we need to hire a single, full-time developer?
News #75 wrote:We wish to raise money to formally hire as many core developers as possible, to work on the project they believe in, the project they've been working on, to transform a hobby into a job so they can dedicate all of their time to the ReactOS project.
This "as many as possible" business is why we have people saying that we could hire a dozen people if they were from a country with a lower cost of living, while others point out that we can't hire a single developer for that price in countries like the US, Canada, UK, etc. Then we're told that the goal is to hire the existing developers who, of course, live in a variety of different nations. If the goal is to hire as many as possible, logically the plan must be to hire the devs who live in the countries with the lowest cost of living first, right? Even then, will they be paid at the GDP per capita of that country, or the going rate for software developers in that country, or based on their individual needs? How many people are you planning to hire with this 30 000 euros? Someone mentioned previously that, when you ask for money for a specific goal, you have a duty to those who donate. I think it's fair to ask how the money will be spent in terms more clear than "as many as possible".
Today entirely the maniac there is no excuse with the article. Get free DOS, Windows and OS/2 games at RGB Classic Games.

hto
Developer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by hto »

jorge1987 wrote: we can make the "ReactOS Religion"
There's already a ROS cult, a secretive masonic lodge of DEVS.

User avatar
EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4402
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Re: ReactOS Fundraising 2012

Post by EmuandCo »

We pray to our god the great ball of fire holding together the unstable connection between the user space and kernel space. Fighting against destructive dramas and hostile bug squadrons from the evil Arch Blackman.
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: ReactOS Fundraising 2012

Post by Z98 »

Webunny wrote:I actually agree with that claim, at least in principle. It's difficult - more so for some than others - to differentiate ones' own opinions from facts.

Note, however, that I at least provided a reference to a researchpaper in regard to my claim that rearranging the donors according to (the hight of) donations will augment it, as it creates an sociological 'standing' within the peer group of donators. This, at least, is not some mere opinion. I didn't give any collaborative evidence for my claim it would be good to lower the donationbar, true. But apart from 'evidence', one can also look at the merit of an argument by logically analysing it, and look at the consistency of the reasoning.

For instance, the other poster says: you better off to ask for what you need, not what you can get. Sounds good, but one has to consider there is no actual absolute number where the 'need' is met. The more money one gets, the more devs one can hire, it's that simple. Given that fact, let's assume the former poster was right, for arguments' sake. If it really would be true that the more you ask, the more you get, then, obviously, one should immediately ask for one trillion euro's. Even if only a fraction would be reached, according to that theory, you would still get vastly more than when you ask for 30000 euro. But I think we can all see that this is a flawed reasoning: if it would truly hold its ground, everyone would long since be asking for gigantic amounts of money. Clearly it doesn't quite work like that, or any project in financial trouble could simply ask for a hunderdfold of their sponsoring, which would then increase their revenue (at least to a point where it exeeds anything they got previously).

So, while I agree hard numbers are the best thing to susbtantiate an opion, one can already discern some contradictions (and thus the lack of validity) in a certain reasoning or argumentation with pure logic too.
1. What research paper? I see no references or links in your previous posts.

2. Logical extremes do not represent good arguments, as their downsides only come into play if the extremity is approached. If there is no possibility of approaching that extremity, then the downsides associated with it become irrelevant and the position you attempted to support with the extreme is heavily undermined because, if the extremity is so unlikely, then the implied conclusion is it has no relevance to the current discussion. I've only seen logical extremes used effectively in two places, arguments against clamping down on civil rights and in satire/parody.

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: ReactOS Fundraising 2012

Post by Webunny »

DOSGuy wrote:That's called taking an argument to its most absurd extreme.


The argument only becomes absurd because the reasoning/claim behind it is absurd. But more at the end of my post.

Let's analyse what I actually said.
The original claim I was responding to was this:
The lower you set the goal, the less money you get.
Logic would indicate, thus, that the higher you set it, the more you will get. This is an untenable statement, for the reasons I already gave. In as far as you follow that original statement, the counterarguments I gave are as valid. If you differ from that stance, it may not be applicable, of course.
If you ask for too little and achieve your goal, donations will probably stop. That's kind of obvious, isn't it? If the goal has been achieved, they clearly don't need any more donations. If we ask for 5000 euros, we'll probably only get 5000 euros. If we ask for a trillion euros, that doesn't guarantee that we'll get a trillion euros, but it does mean that donations won't stop if we make it to 5000 euros. If you set the bar too low, you'll only get that amount.
Am I right in presuming you seem to start with the premise that one can only set one donationbar, once, as a sort of ultimate goal? Because otherwise this whole argument doesn't make sense. I'm not sure why you start from such a presumption, however. Surely, when the goal has reached, a new goal can be set. There is no reason whatsoever to think one has to stop definitely once a specific goal has been reached. In fact, we don't do that with our current bar neither. Or am I to conclude there won't be a 2013 donationbar, once 30000 is reached? Well, then, leave the annual reference out of it, and just set a smaller amount as a goal, and when reached, you can always still decide to introduce another bar. One could as well do it on a monthly basis, or a set goal (aka, the price for a definite amount of devs to be payed, and when succeeded, try for another set of devs to get paid, etc.)

Apart from that, I didn't say one should lower it that much that it's a no-brainer one will get the amount. I said to go for an amount that is still realistic. This does not mean extremely low, it means setting it thus, that it has a chance of actually being reached. This means, it can still remain quite high, de facto, to reach. But sometimes, it's better to have many reachable goals, instead of one big unreachable one.

Right, but is it possible to hire half a developer?
Exactly, which is why smaller but more realistic amounts would be better too. If you know how much one dev would cost, than you can set your goal to that; if you succeed, you can hire him, if not, you can't. If you go for an implausible amount, you don't actually know how many you can hire; 6? 1? A half?

But anyway, it's a bit digressing from the main point. Whether or not one can hire somebody half-time, full-time, or not, has little bearing on the fact that IF (granted, if) it's a matter of 'the more we get, the more devs we can hire', then what I said is basically correct: you can't know when the 'need', and thus, the neither the amount of money to fulfil that need.
The problem is that no one has told us how the 30 000 euros will actually be spent. If the plan is to hire three developers for 10 000 euros each, then it's true that we can hire only one or two developers if we fall short of the goal. But what if the plan only works if we get 30 000 euros because, for instance, we're hiring a single developer? I suppose we could hire someone part-time instead of full-time, but if the goal is to hire a single, full-time developer with this money, the campaign is clearly a failure if we're not able to do that. One of the problems with this campaign is that, to the best of my knowledge, we've been given no breakdown of how the money will be spent, or what will happen if we get less than 30 000 euros. If we fall short, will the money be spent on less ambitious goals, or will it be added to the ReactOS Fundraising 2013 campaign, and it will keep rolling over until we get the 30 000 euros we need to hire a single, full-time developer?
I'm not seeing this as an argument for or against bigger or smaller donationbars, but rather a plea for more transparency as how the money is going to be spend. I concur.
This "as many as possible" business is why we have people saying that we could hire a dozen people if they were from a country with a lower cost of living, while others point out that we can't hire a single developer for that price in countries like the US, Canada, UK, etc. Then we're told that the goal is to hire the existing developers who, of course, live in a variety of different nations. If the goal is to hire as many as possible, logically the plan must be to hire the devs who live in the countries with the lowest cost of living first, right? Even then, will they be paid at the GDP per capita of that country, or the going rate for software developers in that country, or based on their individual needs? How many people are you planning to hire with this 30 000 euros? Someone mentioned previously that, when you ask for money for a specific goal, you have a duty to those who donate. I think it's fair to ask how the money will be spent in terms more clear than "as many as possible".
I can agree with this argument. That said, I do understand the devs (or whoever decided on the bar, or what to do with it) too, when they would prefer not to go for just the most cheap devs. first of all, let's not kid ourselves; Ros ain't exactly easy-pie stuff. You don't want just someone good, but also knowledgeable about the inner workings of Ros (or, more general, of Windows architecture). Logically, you will find the most knowledgeable with those devs that have already put much work into it. That the primary choice, thus, would be to first look at devs that already work at Ros, is understandable. I'm not sure if even 2 cheap Pakistani devs would qualitatively (in this specific domain) be better than 1 more expensive western dev that already have practical knowledge and dealings with working on Ros. Furthermore, by choosing devs that are already interested in it (since they're working in their free time on it), there is also no question about their enthusiasm or devotion to the project.

Ofcourse, all this doesn't mean one could possible get more devs for the same amount, whom are still pretty good and knowledgable anyhow. Some new blood wouldn't be all that bad neither (look at the Google Summer of Code, for instance).

A bit more clarity on what exactly the purpose is, and on what or who the money is going to be spend, would be welcome, indeed. But maybe they don't know it very well themselves yet.

1. What research paper? I see no references or links in your previous posts.
This one:
(see 'Why do people give? The role of identity in giving.Jennifer L. Aaker, Satoshi Akutsu')
One can find it a few posts back.

2. Logical extremes do not represent good arguments, as their downsides only come into play if the extremity is approached. If there is no possibility of approaching that extremity, then the downsides associated with it become irrelevant and the position you attempted to support with the extreme is heavily undermined because, if the extremity is so unlikely, then the implied conclusion is it has no relevance to the current discussion. I've only seen logical extremes used effectively in two places, arguments against clamping down on civil rights and in satire/parody.
I beg to differ. There are no extremes when it's a matter of logic, unless in a context where inconsistency is seen as a viable option (which isn't the case in a normal, rational debate). The 'absurdity' or 'extremes' one speaks of, are directly derived from the fact that the reasoning itself was flawed, or at least, inaccurate. The premise that the more you ask, the more you get is, in it's core, false. This becomes obvious when one consistently applies this; indeed, then it becomes obvious to all. The fact that it becomes obvious does not mean it becomes unwarranted, however. I have the feeling when you and the other poster talk about it being extreme or taken to the absurdity, that you mean the fact I used 1 trillion as an amount. However, this was to make the point blatantly obvious. Surely you understand the premise is wrong, not the amount given. For instance, the reasoning remains exactly the same, whether or not one uses 1 trillion or 30000. If it truly would be valid, than the more one asks, the more one would get. if you think the logic applied to it becomes a less-good argument because the amount is so high, you can easily reduce it: the validity is still as strong or weak.

Say, for instance, I use 50000. Would anything actually change? No; with the same logic applied, the claim that the more you ask, the more you get, would still lead to the conclusion that you would get more if you put 50000 instead of 30000. Yet, the number then would not be absurd or extreme anymore, right? This proves the weakness in the reasoning has nothing to do with the amount one puts in. What about 80000? 100000? What would you consider 'extreme'? Where does the number becomes 'absurd' (an thus, not valid in it's logic anymore, aka yourself)? Clearly there is no clear line in it; it's not the number you put on it that makes it flawed, it's the reasoning itself that is flawed, surely you can see this?

Compare this, now, with my assertion that one is better of with making a donationbar with an amount which one think one is realistically able to get. Apply now the same 'extremes' or 'to the absurd' to it. If one can realistically expect 1 trillion euro, there is no contradiction when one would actually set it so high. True, it remains as hypothetical, but it does NOT become contradictory. Nowhere is the reasoning becoming less substantiated, even when highly unlikely. Thus, there is a qualitative difference between the two claims.
Last edited by Webunny on Thu May 31, 2012 11:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

DOSGuy
Posts: 582
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:55 pm
Contact:

Re: ReactOS Fundraising 2012

Post by DOSGuy »

You know what, I can't be bothered to read all of that. I'm only going to respond to the first new point that you made:
Webunny wrote:Am I right in presuming you seem to start with the premise that one can only set one donationbar, once, as a sort of ultimate goal? Because otherwise this whole argument doesn't make sense. I'm not sure why you start from such a presumption, however. Surely, when the goal has reached, a new goal can be set.
That's a despicable thing to do. If I see that a project is within $200 of its goal, maybe I'll donate $200 so that they can succeed. The next day I come back and I see that they've raised the goal by another $5000. "Oh, so they didn't really need a specific amount of money, they're just going to keep raising the target to whatever they can get." That's a betrayal. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. You may have my $200 this year, but I'll never donate to your cause again.
Last edited by DOSGuy on Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
Today entirely the maniac there is no excuse with the article. Get free DOS, Windows and OS/2 games at RGB Classic Games.

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: ReactOS Fundraising 2012

Post by Webunny »

That's an absolutely deplorable thing to do. If I see that a project has is within $200 of its goal, maybe I'll donate $200 so that they can succeed. The next I come back and I see that they've raised the goal by another $5000. "Oh, so they didn't really need a specific amount of money, they're just going to keep raising the target to whatever they can get." That's a betrayal. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you. You may have my $200 this year, but I'll never donate to your cause again.
You don't raise it, you set a new goal.

With this logic, if they achieve their 30000 euro, you won't be donating next year neither, if they set a new donationbar?

I rather think *that* is deplorable.

DOSGuy
Posts: 582
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:55 pm
Contact:

Re: ReactOS Fundraising 2012

Post by DOSGuy »

"ReactOS Fundraising Campaign 2012". My keen ability to read leads me to believe that this is the goal for 2012. I assume that there will be another goal in 2013. That's different from telling everyone "we're only $590 away from our $5000 goal for 2012", and people donate, and then you say, "Just kidding! Now we're only $5000 away from our $10 000 goal for 2012", surely you can see how that would seem dishonest.

A goal is not a moving target. Everyone agrees how long the field is when you start a game of soccer, and everyone knows how far the goal is when you start a fundraising campaign. I evaluated how much I was going to give you based on the goal that you published; the need that you claimed to have. If I had known that the goal was going to move, and that it wasn't tied to any specific need, I would have given a different amount of money, or perhaps nothing at all.
Today entirely the maniac there is no excuse with the article. Get free DOS, Windows and OS/2 games at RGB Classic Games.

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: ReactOS Fundraising 2012

Post by Webunny »

DOSGuy wrote:"ReactOS Fundraising Campaign 2012". My keen ability to read leads me to believe that this is the goal for 2012. I assume that there will be another goal in 2013. That's different from telling everyone "we're only $590 away from our $5000 goal for 2012", and people donate, and then you say, "Just kidding! Now we're only $5000 away from our $10 000 goal for 2012", surely you can see how that would seem dishonest.
I think your feelings of disgust with the proposal is mainly due to not having read (dixit yourself) what I actually proposed. Also, you're beginning to argue from a straw man fallacy. I clearly said setting a new goal; you make of that: raising the amount asked.

I also explained in my post that one wouldn't need to set an annual date on it, but could as well give another goal, such as the amount it would cost for one developer. Let's say that was 10000 euro. You make it clear that amount is to pay for the first dev. You succeed, and then make a new donationbar for the second dev-hiring.

I don't see how that would be 'deplorable' or 'despicable'. You only need to be upfront about it, and those emotional arguments dwindle into nothingness. There is nothing inherently wrong with it, if you're honest about it and make everything clear from the start when setting the donationbar.

But I already alluded to that in my former post. I respect your wish to not read my post, but then again, it makes your responses to something you didn't read fully prone to faults and errors, or at least irrelevance. I would suggest one or the other: read it and respond to it, or don't read, and do not respond. The combination of not reading (it fully) yet still responding, makes the response often inadequate.

DOSGuy
Posts: 582
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:55 pm
Contact:

Re: ReactOS Fundraising 2012

Post by DOSGuy »

Webunny wrote:I think your feelings of disgust with the proposal is mainly due to not having read (dixit yourself) what I actually proposed. Also, you're beginning to argue from a straw man fallacy. I clearly said setting a new goal; you make of that: raising the amount asked.
It's true that you can start a new campaign, but I think you can only have one 2012 campaign per year. The name chosen for this campaign clearly gives the impression that is THE fundraising campaign for 2012. Come out with another after this one and people will definitely feel duped.
Webunny wrote:I also explained in my post that one wouldn't need to set an annual date on it.
As Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel would say, "Shoulda but didna". It's already been declared the ReactOS Fundraising 2012 campaign. If you remove the date now to allow for the possibility of further campaigns, that's a slap in the face to everyone who donated with the belief that there would be only one campaign this year. You can't just keep asking for more money once you've told everyone how much you need from them for the year.

I completely agree with the method you suggested, but as you said, "You only need to be upfront about it". It would have made absolute sense to have one campaign for each developer, but it's too late to do that in 2012. Maybe they'll do it that way next year.
Webunny wrote:But I already alluded to that in my former post. I respect your wish to not read my post, but then again, it makes your responses to something you didn't read fully prone to faults and errors, or at least irrelevance. I would suggest one or the other: read it and respond to it, or don't read, and do not respond. The combination of not reading (it fully) yet still responding, makes the response often inadequate.
I trust I can be forgiven because it was quite the novel. I'll wait for the Cliff Notes version.
Today entirely the maniac there is no excuse with the article. Get free DOS, Windows and OS/2 games at RGB Classic Games.

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: ReactOS Fundraising 2012

Post by Webunny »

DOSGuy wrote:
Webunny wrote:I think your feelings of disgust with the proposal is mainly due to not having read (dixit yourself) what I actually proposed. Also, you're beginning to argue from a straw man fallacy. I clearly said setting a new goal; you make of that: raising the amount asked.
It's true that you can start a new campaign, but I think you can only have one 2012 campaign per year. The name chosen for this campaign clearly gives the impression that is THE fundraising campaign for 2012. Come out with another after this one and people will definitely feel duped.
Obviously, as long as one indicates it as a 2012 campaign without any further specifications, one implies it's for the whole year, agreed. Then again, as you said yourself, it depends for what that money is going to be used: that is the real goal, after all. It's not literally 'the year' that is going to get it. It might therefore be wiser to have another theme, more directly related to what it's going to be used for.

As long as it does remain something annual, however, the 'realistic amount' should be regarded in an annual fashion too. I agree this is not easy to tell, especially since it's the first time and there is no statistical data for it. Maybe 10000 would be to few. I'm pretty sure 30000 is way to high, though. (Though it's possible I severely underestimate the amount Ros can generate, I'm confident enough to make a bet of $200 for it. ;-) )

In as far as you ONLY intend to have one donationbar, and an annual at that, I can understand your argument that it's better to not set it too low. however, that does not mean that 'the more you ask, the more you get' as the original poster said, is true. I already indicated why this was false. However, it's not because that statement is erroneous, that mine is therefore correct (one has to be honest/logical in that). My statement - without any hard evidence to back it up, as z98 said - can be either right or wrong, I'm merely saying the statement of the original poster is certainly wrong.

Anyway, this whole discussion is theoretically anyway: I don't think the donationbar would be raised or lowered, whatever we say, even if we *had* any research to back it up one way or the other. It will, if ever, only become relevant when the next donationbar has to be set. For instance, if we would hypothetically only reach to 8000 euros for the whole year, it would be ridiculous to set the bar to 30000 again. Reversely, if we would achieve 30000 by next month already, it would make little sense to not augment the amount for the next year, and see if we can reach an even higher goal.

Realistically speaking, however, the chances for the first are much higher than for the latter. But I'll guess we'll see.

PS.About the 'slap in your face'; let's not exaggerate. If they would say; we set the bar a bit too high, we'll lower it to 10000, and make it for the first dev-hiring...would anybody really feel slapped in the face? I think most won't really care, as long as it goes to good use. At least, that's how it is for me, and, I would wager, for most: we don't actually care whether it states 10000 or 30000, nor if it's a precise amount for hiring one dev, and than continuing, or a year, or a month. Would you lay awake at night, or feel 'cheated' when they would lower the bar to 10000 tomorrow? Really? I don't see why. Nothing really changes. Only maybe if they reached their goal, and then restarted the bar AGAIN with '2012' on it, does it make sense to feel cheated. However, if they make clear it's for hiring devs, and they reach the milestone in august, and a week later they set a new bar, this time to upgrade the hardware/servers, would that be cheating? Not in my viewpoint. As I said, it mainly has to do how upfront you are, and what your set goals are when you put up the bar. (granted, in this case, it could be communicated a bit better). There is no cheating or feeling duped if you know what the donations are being raised for, right?

I trust I can be forgiven because it was quite the novel. I'll wait for the Cliff Notes version.
8-)

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: ReactOS Fundraising 2012

Post by Z98 »

Webunny wrote: I beg to differ. There are no extremes when it's a matter of logic, unless in a context where inconsistency is seen as a viable option (which isn't the case in a normal, rational debate). The 'absurdity' or 'extremes' one speaks of, are directly derived from the fact that the reasoning itself was flawed, or at least, inaccurate. The premise that the more you ask, the more you get is, in it's core, false.
I don't recall ever bringing in logic. The use of the word logical in logical extremes refers to expected or natural endpoint of a premise. In and of itself there is no true/false notion behind it. I also have not tried to argue on the topic of 'the more you ask the more you get' since the person who originally presented it fell into the trap of presenting an oversimplified position which is too easy for the otherside to pick apart on the details. I do however take issue with your position as a whole, since it is based on the notion that 30,000 euros is too high a goal, and any support you bring to bear rests on that notion, a personal opinion of yours. While people might not realize it, this particular point cannot be proven one way or another until after the campaign is over so everyone started arguing around the original point of disagreement, resulting in the giant mess I see right now. At this time however the debate is moot as the team spent a fair amount of time thrashing out the details of the campaign over a course of months and the campaign has already started. Whether there is any validity in the points raised so far will be judged based on the outcome of the campaign.

milon
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:26 pm

Re: ReactOS Fundraising 2012

Post by milon »

Webunny wrote:The original claim I was responding to was this:
The lower you set the goal, the less money you get.
Logic would indicate, thus, that the higher you set it, the more you will get. This is an untenable statement, for the reasons I already gave. In as far as you follow that original statement, the counterarguments I gave are as valid. If you differ from that stance, it may not be applicable, of course.
You know, Webunny, it was cute at first watching you argue my point about something that you took entirely too far. But since you kept at it, I'm a little concerned that you really do not understand what I was saying. I shall attempt to clarify:

The general trend in donations for a project of a given scope is that the higher the amount asked for, the higher the amount received. If a project asks for $500, they're not likely to get more than that. If a project asks for $5,000 they're very likely to get more than $500 and not get over $5,000. I am just speaking to a general trend. This cannot be taken to any extremes because neither extreme exists in a serious fundraising campaign. Yes, I've presented an oversimplification of the actual process. I wrote it that way for the sake of brevity, trusting the reader to follow my thought. Maybe I shouldn't do that next time.

Regardless, and to get back on topic, I am against lowering the amount we're requesting in donations. Whether or not it's a "realistic" goal, it's a specific goal that was based on the facts of the situation. It would not be ethical to arbitrarily increase or decrease it without specific knowledge of the expenses involved. As such, the donation goal should stay the same until such time as we have information that says our original estimate was inaccurate.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 2 guests