> we need more recurring donations
Damn... really? More than $170k/year from Github Sponsors? That's got to be the most successful Github Sponsor income ever right?
Why? The salary Andrew Kelley would likely attract at a corporate is much higher than that. If you want sustainable open-source infrastructure then someone, somewhere will have to pay for it. It feels crummy to attempt to pressure people into taking super low salaries (and probably results in higher rates of burnout).
> Damn... really? More than $170k/year from Github Sponsors? That's got to be the most successful Github Sponsor income ever right?
Building programming languages is hard? Rust had something like ~10 Mozilla developers working on it for ~10 years (that's something upwards of $20-30mn in investment).
Because most open source projects don't attract anywhere near those levels of donations. The salary he could get in a private company has no effect on that.
> Rust had something like ~10 Mozilla developers working on it for ~10 years (that's something upwards of $20-30mn in investment).
Fair point.
It's not unheard of. Eg, Blender earns $261,360/month. (https://fund.blender.org/) Companies should more eagerly support open source projects they rely on with funding. It keeps their dependencies competitive with much more expensive commercial products, and a broad base of donations prevents a project from being dominated by specific large corporate interests which might run counter to their average user.