Sponsoring features

From time to time, we (B2CK) are requested to make a proposal for a new feature. Or we have an idea for a new feature.
But frequently we (or our customer) do not have enough budget to implement it. So we would like to group the effort between many customers. But for that we need to advise and communicate about such plan.

I would like to propose to add a “Sponsoring” category on discuss where companies or individuals could post a request to share development effort.
The idea is to link to a feature topic, have an global cost estimation with a progress bar.
People may pledge to sponsor a part of the cost with a comment (or a private message).
A timer could be set on the topic to close it if it did not succeed to reach the goal on time.

After that it will be up to who is requesting sponsor to manage itself the invoicing and payment collection.


I created Sponsoring - Tryton Discussion

1 Like

The workflow is clear when there is some implementator (usually B2CK) that wants to share the cost of implementing a feature with other community members but we are missing a way to some community members to raise their hand if they may contribute some money for some feature but do not want to fully implement that by themselves.

AFAIK @herrdeh was interested on this workflow, so if we organize it others may join.

I’m wondering if just creating the sponsoring request on the same topic will be a good idea, or we need to organize in another way.

Without implementer there is no point to raise money.

Of course, the primary objective will be to get some implementor, even maybe several offers can be raised for the same topic. People offering their sponsor should organize to find the best implementator.

Once an implementator is found, they money can be raised.

1 Like

Thank you for bringing up this topic. I think such sharing of burden and effort is crucial for the success of OpenSource and way too little used until now.

To achieve optimal results, IMHO the concept should incorporate:

  • the chance to contribute different sums per supporter
  • competition in providing the solution
  • quality control in regards of code quality
  • quality control in regards of usability

So I think we should have these steps:

  1. a discussion about the features in request
  2. a kind of “tender” where the task is described
  3. applications of different implementers with their offerings (1)
  4. acceptance of the best bid (2)
  5. actual coding work
  6. creation of documentation
  7. QC of code. (3)
  8. QC of documentation (4)
  9. QC of usability (5)
  10. payment to implementors

(1) As we have the big “me2”-scandal in Tryton, often there will already be solutions in existence, which only need some update/upgrade. Even this reason alone IMHO requires to open the market for various biders. And there are many other good reasons for competition.
(2) Obviously, the concept of the “best bid” is a very critical one. But to begin with, “lowest price” may be good enough, as the implementer has to pass QC steps #6-8.
(3) This IMHO should be done by a committee of 3 understanding people, as a matter of fact Cédric should be one of them. Code reviewers need to get a decent share of the project money.
(4) This can be done by supporters or a distinguished “docu committee”.
(5) This IMHO should be done by the supporters (in case of discord, their votes could be weighted by their contribution).

This sketch is not regarded to be a bullet-proof blueprint, but may serve as a starting point.


Special greetings to @htgoebel, @rmartin , @jsiero (;

1 Like

This is up to the choice of the one who is proposing his services.

This is not in the Tryton way to put people in competition. We always try to achieve consensus.

This is already enforced with the review process.

This is also part of the review process.

This is already done in Feature - Tryton Discussion

This is described in Feature - Tryton Discussion

The sponsoring topics allow to have multiple proposition.

I can not see by whom and on which basis.
For me the sponsors will choose with their money.


I’m giving up here. My believe, that within structures of the foundations substantial improvements are possible, is eaten up. I’ll see what the “contrib area” process will do.


I do not think “contrib” should change in contrib. The same sponsoring process should be avialble for any contribution.