Contributors, Developers, Freelancers, Service providers and anyone who is interested are invited to attempt the issues and claim bounty on merger of PR contributed.
Also, inform on the post and/or issues if you are attempting the issue
If anyone is working on any issue, please add a comment here or in respective github issue. This will help to avoid multiple people working on the same issue and encourage collaborating.
Ok let me take some time here and be the “devil’s advocate”. Aka the bad guy.
The total bounty put out here is worth $2000. At a rate of $20/hour, this is about 100 hours of work for all 4 bounties. I have heard/seen work rate for ERPNext development in the range about $15-$90/-hour.
Who will attempt it?
high experience org : will not take it up. (why would they, if they are busy with other paid work?)
med experience org : may / may not depending if the business is slow or they are feeling extra benevolent
low experience org : might attempt to do it.
Is this feasible?
Now can all this be done in 100 hours?
Just reading/understanding the spec, …will take about 1-2 man weeks. That is about 30-60% of budget gone.
A bounty should be worth it. It should be bountiful.
Is this a good idea?
The first features that make it to the list → implied priority
Priority, should be owned and not “outsourced” or “bountied”
If out sourced, it should be done with some serious backing with the money, so very experienced developers and aspiring developers can take a crack at it. In other words, It should be bountiful.
So if the bounty doesn’t create a feeding frenzy, it is not going to be for the money for sure.
BTW: how long before we know if this system is working?
Is it time bound? At the moment, the ETA on these are undefined.
Which means from meeting deadlines on the priority topics would be uncertain.
In some way I laugh a little (kinda quietly and to myself) when I look at the current “bounty” system.
I have read all of the four posts that the foundation put on the “bounty” list. None of them really had enough detail to properly layout the job and set boundaries around them to limit their scope. Without some realistic endpoint defined, I cannot imagine anyone wanting to try to take on any of the projects. They all seem a bit open ended.
If the foundation wanted to really promote the bounty process by picking the projects and listing them (like they did here), then it may mean the foundation needs to be the entity that fleshes out the specification for the projects they want to promote. This would provide much more detail that a developer can use to determine if it is within their capabilities.
I know several developers that shy away from jobs like the ones described in the curent bounty list. They have each been guilty of attempting to take on a project in the past only to realize that the details that were NOT listed were the ones that may double or triple the effort required to complete the task. In some cases, those missing details could put the project outside the developers skill set.
I just think that in order for this to work, someone needs to be able to help the users better define their projects so that they can be properly evaluated to the effort they would require. This might be a more appropriate task for the foundation if they want to promote the bounty system.
Just my thoughts. Probably not in alignment with the majority, but still worth considering.
Great and appreciative ideas I would just say is that, that its very nicely described in the steps that how its used and how can it be further developed for its better use along with erps.
