forked from I2P_Developers/i2p.www
Fixed unparsable character
This commit is contained in:
@ -59,7 +59,7 @@
|
||||
21:16:34 <str4d> Bounty uptake IS slow, due to a lack of visibility/advertising/marketing/whatever, but the bounties are slowly getting taken.
|
||||
21:16:41 <dg> I don't know if the bounties which are being fufilled are perhaps not being fufilled the way we want too.
|
||||
21:17:03 <str4d> But, of the claimed bounties, not a single developer is currently with I2P.
|
||||
21:17:10 <dg> For example: "Datastore over I2P" - "CLAIMED for 700 <EFBFBD>" - "duck, smeghead"
|
||||
21:17:10 <dg> For example: "Datastore over I2P" - "CLAIMED for 700 euro" - "duck, smeghead"
|
||||
21:17:20 <lillith> perhaps, change bounties to ..... and maintain your work for a reasonable time
|
||||
21:17:23 <nom> to get actual continuous development going, a better model is one of project/stipends, where people donate to a project with stated goals, and the people running that project pay the money out continuously to people who are actively working to accomplish those goals
|
||||
21:17:34 <dg> The solution was, IMO, hacky, the bountry $$$ was rather high for the hack and the two developers for that bounty are nowhere to be found.
|
||||
|
@ -237,7 +237,7 @@
|
||||
22:12:41 <str4d_> lillith: eche is currently sourcing the required money.
|
||||
22:12:48 <lillith> <lillith> but there are other, non- bounty uses for money, for example purchasing ssl certificates
|
||||
22:13:16 <str4d_> <kytv2> eche|on: any updates on the certificate situation? I haven't had to get "real "certs for a while and don't know how long the verification process takes nowadays.
|
||||
22:13:19 <str4d_> <eche|on> kytv2: I am on the hunt for 3k <EFBFBD> and cert requests...
|
||||
22:13:19 <str4d_> <eche|on> kytv2: I am on the hunt for 3k euro and cert requests...
|
||||
22:13:29 <lillith> so it's under control then?
|
||||
22:13:36 <iRelay> <weltende@freenode> and pushed..
|
||||
22:14:14 <KillYourTV> yes, it's being taken care of
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user