[iaw]

No, I think under most circumstances it's completely fine to undercut someone. I think it's a crappy thing to do when someone is trying to participate in the market as a contractor and someone else as a volunteer.

This individual could have volunteered on any project but instead chose to participate in a bid based market for contractors at an effective $0 rate. Presuming those contractors will only contribute to Open Source projects if paid then, on net, the world would have been better served if the guy had volunteered on a project not open for bid.

I hope that makes a bit more sense. It's a nuanced issue to dance around via text without a long issue, the guy has every right to do whatever he wants but I think it's kind of rude and inconsiderate towards the contract market participants.

[Kalium]

I believe I understand your position. In a situation where a project is open for market-rate bidding, you believe that only people looking to profit should bid. To do otherwise is more than rude, it hurts someone trying to make rent. I don't agree, for several reasons.

First, I think that because the goal here is a public good. As a result, civic engagement in the form of volunteerism is something to be welcomed and encouraged. Volunteerism in public good production is a net win, as it frees up resources for other uses where volunteer labor is not available. This could easily include paying contractors to write Open Source software, leading to a net increase in the production of Open Source software. The goal is a maximum of production of public goods, not a maximum of employment of people to produce public goods.

Second, I do not think you like where this logic leads if applied with your caveats. By your logic, you should object to any non-profit performing service that are also performed by for-profit entities in the event that the former undercuts the latter for service recipients. Your logic requires you to object to free clinics, MSF, and food pantries. All participate in markets as volunteers where others are attempting to participate as for-profit actors. Do you think MSF is rude and inconsiderate?

Third, I do not think you have considered the practical implications of your proposal. How do you propose 18F determine which projects should be market-rate-only and which should be volunteer-only? Do you think there's reasonable any way of doing this that produces ideal or near-ideal outputs? I do not. Such a distinction is at best arbitrary.

To review, I understand your position. You hold that volunteers should not undercut for-profit contractors in market bidding scenarios. I disagree. The product here is a public good, and we wish to maximize production of public goods for a given cost. Further, any logic that requires you to object to MSF should be reconsidered. Finally, I hold your proposed alternative to be unworkable.