Tipped person needs to have a Github account #80
Comments
|
Right. We have tickets to add Facebook (#30), Twitter (#31), and Google (#32) logins. However, if we try to become a bona-fide marketplace with our own merchant account, then narrowing our focus apparently helps considerably with getting underwritten (see #67). In that case we would change the copy on the About page. We probably should change that copy anyway since I don't think we're going to get to #30, #31, and/or #32 immediately anyway. |
|
I feel like someone should create something similar to Github for non-techie projects. An open-source, collaborative for groups of people working on non-profit projects....similar to 37Signals Basecamp product. The difficulty, even when Face/Twit/Goog accounts are added is that there is no one to easily see what work that person has contributed from those accounts, whereas with Github you can. Has someone created a do-gooder/open-source Basecamp-esque site like this that we could partner with? I agree with brunobord... it seems silly to ask a Musician to join github in order to be tipped. But, otherwise, how do we know he's a musician worth tipping? I feel like Fbook/Twit/Goog+ are accounts for your Personal Life, LinkedIn is an account for... your Employed/Professional Life, and this 3rd account I'm talking about is the account for your DOING life, for all of the projects you work on. Maybe, a personal portfolio site could function in this way for the time being... something like Behance, etc. |
|
Maybe as a simple way to create this within Gittip it to let people access Gittip with their fbook/twit/goog account and then provide us with a brief list of their projects, as mentioned in #27 |
|
+1 from thaumaturgy on HN. |
|
I think it is quite valuable to maintain focus first (i.e. only Github, only recurring donations) and maybe extend later where it makes sense. The ability to concentrate on one particular field should allow us to serve that niche much better. An alternative to extending the coverage of Gittip (beyond Github, beyond programmers, include one-time donations, include bounties) could be to encourage a network of sister sites that have different targets. Somewhat similar to how Stackexchange works. There would need to be a no-cost transfer of money between those sites for this to work (not to be able to shift your own balance around, but to donate to things on the other sites without establishing yet another billing relationship). Example: TipTheWeb could pay out donations from their system to Github repos via Gittip instead of PayPal. I think that fits in nicely with the idea of Gittip being a collaborative effort. |
|
+1: being able to use gittip for anyone would be a fantastic feature. Even better would be to somehow allow organizations (e.g. bands) to register. |
|
I think this issue is interesting as it plays heavily into the concept of issue #216 - Let's assume a python bias for a moment and look at the list of core contributors: http://docs.python.org/devguide/developers.html - how many of those individuals actually have github accounts (less than half). Yet their work makes it possible. I'd hazard to assume the same for the PyPy team, and others who could benefit from the ideals behind gittip just as much as those with github accounts. Enabling this (meaning, not locking it to github) means that its potential rises quite a bit, and people with "platforms" as you call out in http://gist.io/3593759 can point to more than just people on github. It essentially cripples the network effect possible |
This paves the way for adding new social networks. By putting these under their own namespace we remove clutter from the top-level namespace, which is for Gittip users. What if GitHub wants an account on Gittip? :-)
|
Tomorrow I'm going to the XOXO festival in Portland, Oregon. I see it as a chance to get Gittip in front of a new community of people, one not geared toward software. My goal today is to add Twitter support to Gittip in order for Gittip to be more accessible to people at XOXO. Punchlist
|
|
Here's where we assume a GitHub account: The Insofar as we still want unclaimed accounts (don't want to dig that deep today if possible), we should use autogenerated participant_ids for unclaimed accounts, and handle choosing a username at claim (== registration) time. This addresses the issue of reserving names on Gittip for locked accounts as well. I think it's a step too far to let people lock out names on Gittip. If twitter/foo and github/foo are different people, then that's the very case in which we don't want to allow twitter/foo to prevent github/foo from using gittip/foo. Certainly twitter/foo should be able to disassociate themselves from gittip, but we shouldn't lock out gittip/foo as a result. |
|
What about the case where twitter/foo and github/foo are the same person? Well, if users can't change their participant_id on Gittip then the point is moot. */foo can lock twitter/foo and github/foo, and no-one would be able to be foo on Gittip. But we want to let people change their participant_id on Gittip. When twitter/foo and github/foo are different, and both want to join Gittip, one of them needs to chose a different participant_id. What do we do for */foo when they want to disavow Gittip? It would be bad for someone to be able to take their name on Gittip, pretending to be them, and potentially accept money that was really intended for them. We probably need to bring back a hard "no tips" option (for the soft option, see #114). I've been thinking that we need this anyway. I feel bad burdening people like @jacobian and @tenderlove with the piddly chore of making sure they're not accidentally accumulating money they don't want. :-( Hard no tips option reticketed as #285. |
|
I'm not going to over-think the locking case for today. |
We had been setting aside usernames for any GitHub user who was merely view on Gittip, let alone who had locked their account. Relaxing this practice is necessary to open up the Gittip namespace to users from other networks such as Twitter in the immediate case. Once Twitter integration settles we'll revisit the need to resolve naming conflicts.
This sets us up to add a twitter.py module parallel to github.py.
This is good enough for now to satisfy how unclaimed accounts are resolved. That page should be rebuilt anyway.
|
|
|
@lyndsysimon Yeah, it's going to get problematic way before a couple million. :-) Reticketed as #286. |
Got bit by an Aspen bug. :-/ https://github.com/whit537/aspen/issues/102
|
Gonna go ahead and close this as well as #31. Reticketed a number of items (see above). |
As far as I can see, gittip would only work for people who have a github account. Most of the time (and I'm almost sure that it's near 100% of the time), people working with github and git do it for software.
That jumped to my mind when I read:
I don't see a musician, including my favorite musician opening a github account just to be tipped using gittip.
I may be wrong, but except if you open gittip to other ID providers, the "Musician / Listener" use case will be very rare.
I don't have a solution, but maybe this needs to be discussed and probably fixed in the future. Your thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: