On Aug 18, 2013, at 8:04 PM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
On reading the second paragraph of the above message I see that you and I
might have a common objective. You mentioned that you don't know how to do
that beyond what is done now. I suggested a rate for people with an open
source affiliation. I did not define what open source means. I think that
you will be acting in good faith and that you will be able to convince your
employer that it will not make you look good if you are listed in a category
which is intended to lessen the burden for open source developers who
currently cannot attend meetings or who attend meetings on a very limited
budget.
But my point was more that "open source" is meaningless, and not what I think
we're missing/need. I agree we need more developers (at least in RAI it would
help), but whether the things they develop are open source or not doesn't
matter. Developers of open source are no better or worse than those of closed
source. And their source code "openness" is not tied to their ability to pay
or not, either.
-hadriel