> The tone of the article was very much about the 5k being a ridiculous expense.
I did not detect that tone at all. Rather, I interpreted it as surprise that Reitz spent $5k of a fundraiser very explicitly earmarked as being "to support Request 3.0 development" on a computer, when a new computer is not obviously something you need to develop Requests 3.0.
I also didn't get the feeling that the author expected to be paid (in fact, he seems quite clear that he did not).
Would paying him to work on it not be part of supporting Request 3.0 development? Unless he specifically said it was only going to operating costs or other people, I'd assume that at least a good part of a donation toward him would be for a salary for himself.
Sure, but the problem there (as the linked article discusses) is that he didn't say that's what he was doing.
$30k isn't a huge sum, but you still need some transparency and accounting. A line item saying "it all went to me, to reimburse me for all the work I'm doing on the project" is fine, but you still need the line item so people can evaluate it.
Unless he had said otherwise, I'd think "it all went to me" is the default for the entirety of funds sent to him on a donation page on his own site with his name on it. Maybe he could have been more explicit that it was a salary for him to spend time on Requests, not some team, but that doesn't seem like something to demonize him over.
The article does raise some good concerns of whether he claimed on the donation page to work on things he wasn't personally going to do. I just think a few of the article's angles are pretty flawed and uncharitable.
This is why I do not work on open source projects any more. Entitled know nothings who demand that everyone live on $5 a day in a dilapidated share house because they do.
I've had people stalk me, much like this post, and demand I give a line item breakdown of where the expenses are going.
This is a huge problem for the ecosystem since we are being left with the no-hopers who are unemployable for a reason. And the corporate funded developers who have a huge conflict of interest.
I did not detect that tone at all. Rather, I interpreted it as surprise that Reitz spent $5k of a fundraiser very explicitly earmarked as being "to support Request 3.0 development" on a computer, when a new computer is not obviously something you need to develop Requests 3.0.
I also didn't get the feeling that the author expected to be paid (in fact, he seems quite clear that he did not).