Donation Link: Lets gather information
Wayne Mery (Thunderbird QA)
vseerror at Lehigh.EDU
Wed Dec 11 18:39:11 UTC 2013
On 12/11/2013 6:43 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-12-10 7:00 PM, Kent James <kent at caspia.com> wrote:
>> This is probably enough income to sustain the product in it current
>> form, but not enough to make significant forward progress. I don't want
>> to minimize the value of sustaining the product in its current form, for
>> the majority of our users that is probably sufficient. But I also know
>> that I have higher hopes. That's why I have been encouraging us to
>> consider a more aggressive approach to in-product fund raising.
> I like that this is being addressed, as I have been having serious fears
> that Thunderbird might eventually die a slow death, and this would be a
> truly bad/sad thing...
> What I would like to see is this (future development) broken down into 3
> categories (in order of priority):
> 1) Sustaining current product (security updates, etc)
> 2) Defining core functionality that is broken and/or in need of
> fixing - ie, HTML composer, much improved IMAP support, Calendar
> integration/improvements (fix broken Google Calendar Event
> handling), etc, then prioritizing everything
> 3) Defining desirable *new* features (Address Book replacement, etc)
> Specifically, 'New' features should take a serious back seat to fixing
> broken/lacking core functionality...
(I'm not saying there is, but) If there is a need to discuss and define
how and what gets developement attention, I think it should have it's
own title and thread. Unless rkent disagrees. The conversation about
setting up generic donations is already complex enough without adding
things like the development dump truck.
More information about the tb-planning