(2014-10-08, 13:22)ruuk Wrote: One issue I see with this is that it singles out addon developers for donations. The XBMC/Kodi team members will not be similarly recognized.
Also donations for Kodi are currently used for support of the infrastructure costs, whereas this would move into diffrent territory.
I'm not specifically against the idea of allowing donation buttons on addon pages, but I would tend to say they are better placed in a less official location, for instance the developers forum signature.
IMHO, it's like the two faces of a same medal. In what follows I'm having a little fun with this idea, with a solution...
I understand the stand point of Kodi devs. From a logical point of view, let K={Kody} and A={Addons} as singletons of binary values where either 1=exist either 0=doesn't exist (I could use the
Set theory and its operators but I don't have those symbols on my keyboard). Then for being able to use the platform "K", simple boolean algebra gives the function ((K and A) or K)
note that boolean algebra simplifies this to "K", which would be sufficient to demonstrate the insignificance of A, but the goal here is to show the impact of A. If K=0 (nonexistence of Kody), we get nothingness; else whatever the value (the existence or nonexistence) of A, we always have K (existence of Kody).
However, this primitive binary
modeling of thinking does not represent the whole reality when we consider the bigger "Set" of things, from both sides...
Side "K" (Kody creators/devs)
Without "K", "A" cannot exist. Too many people have been imbued a psychological illness of not wanting to pay taxes : when they make a donation to an addon they like, they forget or don't want to think about why, how, and in what context these addons came to existence, and more importantly can continue to exist for the long run.
Unaware users concentrating their donations to "A", would make it as such that in the end, "K" will disappear AND consequently also "A". Indeed, nobody, e.g. not(k or A), wants this to take place.
Side "A" (addons creators/devs)
Without "A", "K" is not very interesting, like some minimalist or quasi-empty shell, thus the Users should be able to show their appreciation towards those who made them keep "K". In fact, for "A" a similar logic evoked by "K" can also be applied : without "A", "K" would not exist in favor of another platform.
But this would be only true if "A" really was a "singleton", which is not the case (else "A" = "k" which is not a reality and thus must be avoided as an Axiom).
Conclusion : both sides have legitimate arguments. What can be done then? Disallowing "A" to get voluntary recognition would represent an unbalanced, inequitable and unjust situation (a bit like communism). From the two stances
and In all justice, if "A" should be allowed to get recognized amongst all the other A's out there, then "K" should also get a part of that "recognition" at the same time, since it includes "A", for all the resources that are involved to stay "balanced" given the business (logical) model. While recognizing "K" alone, would not imply that a particular "A" and its resources is also recognized, although "A" spends real money for its resources, and although there's the possibility that "K" was recognized for allowing all those "A" to exist, not only for its shell.
It can seem to get complicated (and it does), but actually this leads us to a very simple solution further down (
which I'm sure has already been thought-out, but without a good argumentation it seems since "A" still don't get any recognition yet). Because nonetheless, we have that other entity evoked by side "K" which is also mandatory for side "A" (and thus which could radically break that logical conclusion above):
"dU", the User which is an unknown. Either a hidden 3rd "digit" throwing all that binary crap reasoning out the window, either a non-deterministic state representing more than two "stances" or "possibilities" (number of "allowed" digits for some undetermined algebraic base), also breaking any boolean algebra. They are like "functions" of a somewhat "NP-complete domain" : we cannot count on their unknown self-determined will to make the above logic "work", as we can't know the real intentions hiding behind the binary "pseudo-intention" of "true" (donation) or "false" (no donation)...
"Taxing" the donations - It follows that we must devise some mechanism that would "approach" the above logic as much as possible given the "dU" uncertainty, else we'd have to forget about having "A" of quality, and then in the end about having a "K" of quality, in the long run ditching everyone's existence in the sideway - currently there are much too many broken addons compared to their numbers, even those targeting reputable Web streaming services:
- If "dU" donates to "A", then it is assumed that there is a strong probability that dU was also appreciating the fact that "K" allows for "A" to exist, spawning such probability of intention either over the Set of all donations to all "A", either for each one of such donation (let's say a mean average per donation to simplify things, for evaluating a percentage behind such intention).
- If "dU" donates to "K", the same probability applies the other way around but is split between all the "A" (as a real life comparative, it's like what could be considered as "fiscal measures" or "incentives" for enterprises, "A" representing one company and "K" the State within which that company is thriving amongst other companies). However, in such a case the priority is unequivocally given to "K": dU's intention is not as "debatable" as for a donation to "A".
(Paradoxically, this is like showing that taxes allow for freedom - and free entrepreneurship - to take place, as well as Democracy, but this is out of the scope of this message and would require some book-writing on my part : sorry guys - some who have read up to here can also feel lucky about this! ;-).
SOLUTION - To simplify even further (I don't have time to go beyond and thus it wouldn't be "fun" anymore for me to write this message)... Although far from perfection but still better than no donations for "A", it could all come down to determine how many people are
aware of their intentions vs their donations, via some percentage :
as such "K" would Tax all the donations to "A", a context where "A" could actually receive donations, but without the possibility to unbalance the resources for "K" to exist in regards to all the "A"s, and especially in regards to "dU". Thus representing a more "just" and balanced context for everyone's existence. I know, many people don't like that word, "TAX", like some cognitive conditioning by the medias, but if it's only a matter of semantic let's then call this a
commission for every one's psyche to be comfortable with ;-)...
1)- any donation to "A" would have xx% go to "K";
2)- any
beneficial margin that can be lifted by "K" annually (thus assuming that all the resources and salaries have been paid off), should be redistributed amongst those "A"'s who have received donations, at the "prorata" (proportional) of these donations fo each "A".
Note: point 2) can be complicated to implement in a short time period, however even if only point 1) is "instated", this would still render a much more FAIR context for "A" developers, and in the end for the assurance of "K"'s longevity and existence. The current context makes it as such that "K" gets crippled with bugs towards the users base (dU), making it much less interesting for "dU" to keep "K" in his/her living-room...
but we need consensus for something like this to be introduced. For now, I did not include it.
