Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
ivanmontillam | on: OccupySaaS
Because it feels good to start something rather than joining an existing someone at the exact same mission.

It's all just performative.

epicureanideal | parent | next
Perhaps let's brainstorm ways to solve this. How can we incentivize joiners to projects? How can we both appreciate the founders and starters, and the later joiners who are necessary for the project? Perhaps if we encourage our own community (tech) to give serious weight and appreciation to all contributors, that will move things in the right direction.

Also, the creators of projects can do their part by sharing the praise their projects receive with their contributors.

What other ideas do folks have to encourage joining rather than starting?

Maybe assigning specific "ownership" (responsibility for, overall credit for) of some portion of the project to long time contributors over time?

ivanmontillam | root | parent
I'm not sure the issue is getting credit for contributions, or as you suggest: giving ownership of areas of a project. After all, that's a problem already solved: CLAs for open source. With CLAs in place, developers get credited for their efforts (git blames!), as well as part of the IP of their implemented solution if accepted.

My argument goes more about the lines of: Some people want to be the starter of a project, disregarding existing, often advanced efforts about the same problem.

Take for example, the bajillion expenses tracker apps. The most reinvented wheel. Do we need yet another one?

To me, it's an ego-driven thing.

loading story #50334658
loading story #50333954
loading story #50332946
okdood64 | parent | next
Exactly. Also it's incredible how many working professionals (as evidenced by this "movement") don't understand why companies pay for software to these SaaS companies.

Ironically attaching your company to a movement like this will deter people from using it.

ivanmontillam | root | parent
In my opinion, most tech-like professionals miss the point of delegating liabilities.

The whole reason to pay for software is to offload the liability to a 3rd-party. In simpler words: "As a company, I have this need and I don't want to solve it myself. Also, if I pay someone, I can sue them on contract breach just in case."

The legal part of the liability offload is key in the decision, because it requires ownership.

FOSS doesn't fulfill that requirement, therefore, adopting FOSS means the user owns the liability of using the software. Companies don't need or want more liability than they currently have to, less is better.

loading story #50334908
rrr_oh_man | parent
It's the NIH disease