The mission statement gives examples of how this is a great idea for musicians, coffee shop owners, and other generally smart people ("genius grants for the rest of us"). On the other hand: the name, the required GitHub authentication, and the list of suggested tippees all strongly imply that this is solely for programmers. This says to me that the grand plan is to start out by focusing on programers (which makes sense, since it's a group of people who are on the whole really good at recognizing and rewarding people and projects that make their jobs easier), and to eventually expand from there.
The problem with this is that 'Gittip' is an incredibly technically-focused name; it makes perfect sense in context of tipping your favorite GitHub contributors, but not so much when your average non-engineer Joe wants to give money to the guy who makes his coffee every morning.
You know, I thought the same thing. The idea started as a tipjar for Github and I bought Gittip.com, but then I realized it was much bigger, so I decided to use Logstown.com, a domain I already own. But then I was talking to my bro-in-law this past weekend, a non-technical musician, and he was like "Logstown makes me think I'm taking a dump. I like Gittip a lot better." So I renamed it back.
He has no idea what git and github are, so the name gittip to him is just a nice, symmetrical name that has "tip" in it and evocations of "gift."
Go figure.
Look at the way that "bit" and "wiki" have evolved beyond BitTorrent and the WikiWikiWeb. I console myself by hoping that with gittip, the same is maybe happening to "git."
Does it matter? "Regular" people won't pick up on the reference to git, but it's still a nice short domain name, easy to spell and pronounce, and git is a slang spelling for get. I think the name works well.
1. People perform poorly, creative and intellectually, when there is a reward at stake, specially if it is cash. This is proved by multiple studies.
2. Small cash compensations will shift the focus from the main reason people enjoy to code and contribute. Worst, if the amount of cash reward is inferior to the true value of the work they do (and it will be), people will feel undervalued and loose motivation. Either pay them well, or not pay at all.
3. It will be a constant remainder they should be making real money instead of making tips on github.
4. The system benefits developers by popularity instead of quality. Besides popular developers are those who need it the least.
5. Popularity and profit will poison the minds of the young Jedi's while coding thus decreasing overall code quality, creativity and productivity.
1. Gittips aren't a paycheck, they are a no-strings-attached gift.
2. Small cash compensations will free people up to contribute to society on their own terms rather than wasting their time surfing Facebook in a cubicle.
3. It might be a reminder that their society values the contributions they make based on their passions and interests and not on their utility to a corporation.
4. Popular developers know who is doing the grunt work and deserves more recognition. They can call out such people via Twitter, etc. In the future I can imagine upgrading Gittip to allow high earners to distribute higher amounts per person per week.
5. Young Jedis will be incentivized to add true value to society as adjudicated by the wise crowd, rather than answering to a monolithic corporation as their societal proxy.
It appears some of the people who you can tip on the site actually had the tip jars set up for them without their knowledge. I think this was on HN before about why that isn't cool.
Gifts don't count as income in the US. There's a gift tax on the donor, but that doesn't kick in until you give $13,000 per person per year. Not sure about other countries.
Widget: Heck yeah! Wanna write one? :-)
Intended to be mainstream, starting w/ Github. But Guido isn't on Github, only Google+. :-(
Do you really think the tips should be recurring to the same person every week, rather than also having a one off option? Also, once you've started tipping someone, it's possible to stop?
[+] [-] lazerwalker|14 years ago|reply
The mission statement gives examples of how this is a great idea for musicians, coffee shop owners, and other generally smart people ("genius grants for the rest of us"). On the other hand: the name, the required GitHub authentication, and the list of suggested tippees all strongly imply that this is solely for programmers. This says to me that the grand plan is to start out by focusing on programers (which makes sense, since it's a group of people who are on the whole really good at recognizing and rewarding people and projects that make their jobs easier), and to eventually expand from there.
The problem with this is that 'Gittip' is an incredibly technically-focused name; it makes perfect sense in context of tipping your favorite GitHub contributors, but not so much when your average non-engineer Joe wants to give money to the guy who makes his coffee every morning.
[+] [-] whit537|14 years ago|reply
He has no idea what git and github are, so the name gittip to him is just a nice, symmetrical name that has "tip" in it and evocations of "gift."
Go figure.
Look at the way that "bit" and "wiki" have evolved beyond BitTorrent and the WikiWikiWeb. I console myself by hoping that with gittip, the same is maybe happening to "git."
[+] [-] jforrest|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aristidesfl|14 years ago|reply
1. People perform poorly, creative and intellectually, when there is a reward at stake, specially if it is cash. This is proved by multiple studies.
2. Small cash compensations will shift the focus from the main reason people enjoy to code and contribute. Worst, if the amount of cash reward is inferior to the true value of the work they do (and it will be), people will feel undervalued and loose motivation. Either pay them well, or not pay at all.
3. It will be a constant remainder they should be making real money instead of making tips on github.
4. The system benefits developers by popularity instead of quality. Besides popular developers are those who need it the least.
5. Popularity and profit will poison the minds of the young Jedi's while coding thus decreasing overall code quality, creativity and productivity.
[+] [-] whit537|14 years ago|reply
1. Gittips aren't a paycheck, they are a no-strings-attached gift.
2. Small cash compensations will free people up to contribute to society on their own terms rather than wasting their time surfing Facebook in a cubicle.
3. It might be a reminder that their society values the contributions they make based on their passions and interests and not on their utility to a corporation.
4. Popular developers know who is doing the grunt work and deserves more recognition. They can call out such people via Twitter, etc. In the future I can imagine upgrading Gittip to allow high earners to distribute higher amounts per person per week.
5. Young Jedis will be incentivized to add true value to society as adjudicated by the wise crowd, rather than answering to a monolithic corporation as their societal proxy.
[+] [-] albertsun|14 years ago|reply
http://krisstraub.com/2011/11/20/kachingle-and-the-transgres...
[+] [-] carols10cents|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whit537|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] devfuel|14 years ago|reply
Also, would it be appropriate to have a widget? Includes stuff like:
-"Hey. Here is how you can support this work"
-Gittip Overview Link
-Github handle
-Public income numbers
Or is that too "gimme"? Is this meant to be more of a "for hackers by hackers" thing? Or more mainstream?
[+] [-] whit537|14 years ago|reply
Widget: Heck yeah! Wanna write one? :-)
Intended to be mainstream, starting w/ Github. But Guido isn't on Github, only Google+. :-(
[+] [-] rys|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whit537|14 years ago|reply
b) Yes, it's trivial to stop. And because tips are anonymous, there's no social awkwardness to stopping a tip.
[+] [-] zalew|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whitmo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]