Bounties

SME Server Bounties

	Note:
	This page is work in progress as we try to structure an SME Server Bounties program

The hunt is on!

If simply contributing to an Open Source project is not enough, you now have an added incentive. The SME Server Project has organized an ongoing Bounty Hunt. Listed below are various tasks we would like to see completed or features which have been requested. If you have suggestions for possible bounties, look at the current list of enhancement requests and Submit yours if it is not already listed.

Open Bounties

Component	Task	Bug No.	Bounty Prize	Sponser(s)
e-smith-base+ldap	Integrate LDAP auth in the core distribution	Bug 4590	+$50 (1)	jester, Name or Names go here

Rules

To successfully claim your prize you need to follow a few rules:

1. All code submitted for a bounty must be without any known intellectual property limitations. Furthermore, it must be submitted under the same license as the application to which it will be applied (for example, GPL for SME Server).
2. The code must be accepted and committed into the development branch by the module's maintainers before any prize will be awarded.
3. Patches must conform to SME Server coding and template/db standards. The code must work and work elegantly (i.e., no hack jobs).
4. In the case of multiple submissions for a single bounty, the judging panel will select and award the highest quality one.
5. Group submissions must designate a lead person who will submit the claim on behalf of the group.
6. All bounty awards or rejections are at the sole discretion of the judging panel. We may refuse to award a bounty to anyone for any reason at any time (although there will certainly be a valid reason, since it is in everyone's interest for the bounty process to work smoothly).

Once you have submitted your code and it has been accepted into CVS, just let the developers who handled the patch know that you're claiming the bounty. Prizes will be paid using PayPal.

Footnotes

1. Personal money, will try to get company sponsoring for a more appropriate amount | --jester 19:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)