Contributor
Last updated
Last updated
In the absence of contributors, the common digital service does not evolve. This may be appropriate if it continues to fulfill its role towards its , but it can be a problem if no one in the community is able to drive change. There is a risk of switching to a proprietary model where a small number of entities take control of developments and create a market for them.
Contributors are primarily of the service.
A contributor can only be a natural person.
A legal entity can only contribute to the commons indirectly, through the affiliation of individual contributors, for example its employees; or by being a of the contributors' activity through financial, logistical or reputational support...
In most cases, the primary reward for contributors is their benefit from using the common digital service. There is therefore no need for a specific retribution.
However, if contributions are not properly acknowledged, the motivation of contributors may decrease. In the case of a contributory commons, this can lead to its disappearance. To perpetuate the community, contributors must feel welcome as users, but also acknowledged and even rewarded as contributors.
This can of course be done through financial retribution, for instance in the form of compensation, salary or a service contract. But acknowledgement can also come through reputation, for example by putting the name of the contributor forward, or through extended decision-making powers within the boundaries of the commons.
The attribution of these rewards can be done automatically, for example by highlighting the most assiduous contributors as does or as allows.