We are all Tryton salesmen . I was making the observation that the features community members want to pay for now are not necessarily the features that that will help Tryton succeed in the long term (I will readily acknowledge the circular argument that without solving immediate issues there may not be a long term, to which I would respond there must still be an appropriate balance, and it must be the project leaders and developers who determine it, for it is their project).
I agree with you in concept regarding
but IMHO think you may be over-estimating the time and budget the Foundation has available to manage a formal process such as you propose, even if it were to be supportive of one.
While I do not fully agree with @ced
because it could also be argued that without money there will be no implementer, I also take @ced’s reply to mean developer’s time is a scarce commodity, and unless there is agreement first on the value of a proposed feature, it is unlikely an implementer will be interested in the work. Further, I believe the comment was made wrt collaborative development by the project community, and not from the perspective of a Tryton Services Provider (e.g. B2CK), who I expect would have had clients who funded development of features unique to their own needs, and expect you could do the same.
Since the Tryton project governance is a federation of contributing members with no central authority, development must be determined by consensus (@ced said as much above “We always try to achieve consensus.”), and management by consensus is always challenging. The alternative is to hire a team and do the work yourself, which to some degree is the approach taken by Coopengo (see the “How we used Tryton to build an insurance ERP” presentation at TUB 2016, and the Coopengo Tryton Tutorials, which I believe you may already be familiar with).
I do not understand why not. Unless I am missing something, it seems one is free to simply post to the Sponsoring channel in Discuss with a link to the issue in the bug tracker, state they are interested in sponsoring the resolution (or some portion of it), and invite developers to propose a cost.
P.S. IMHO language such as this
does not help your cause. “Scandal” is a loaded word (evokes a strong emotional response instead of a considered rational response), and the lack of description implies readers should be familiar with the issue, and those who are not are hence inferior to the writer.