Something Similar to Stretch Goals?

Just trying to think of more ways to incentivize people to donate.

A lot of people coming to Krita from other programs may be looking forward to specific features, and not knowing if a feature is coming makes it hard for some to decide wheather to tough it out with subscription programs for workflow convenience, or donate that money to Krita hopeful for features that they don’t have much way of knowing will come.

Perhaps if possible, Krita devs could list financial “stretch goals” (can be changed to different phrasing, I’m using for simplicity of reference and lack of better wording) for certain features?
And how close they are financially to afford implementing xyz goals.
It’s very useful for crowdsourced projects.

I know the only barriers are not just money, but time and compatibility.

  • However, I think if a feature seems very doable and highly requested then it could be considered to be listed at whatever ballpark cost it may take to implement.

  • Other features can still be considered, but not listed if unsure they are possible or not a high priority.

  • A few prioritized features can be listed over less prioritized ones to avoid cluttering of a large list, that may be updated over time as foreseeable goals are reached and new goals can be added.

  • And features not listed can still always be implemented ofcourse if the devs want, they are not restricted to just the stretch goals list. The devs still have their priority documents that are more in depth or may involve more features and fixes, implements, etc. than the few major ones on stretch goal lists.

I do not expect time frames on when to expect features, but knowing for certain whether or not a highly requested feature is coming, or if we are close and able to assist making it happen is extremely helpful and can get people excited.

We could have a list visible on the same page or linked from there of when any previous stretch goals were met, that would be a convenient way to immediately see and dispel assumptions/hesitation that Krita “updates slow” just because it is not a for profit program.

All this would encourage people to donate if they really want a listed stretch goal feature, aswell as offer some scope of feasibility and expectations for new features requests.
Of which in turn may foster requests that are more helpful and reasonable, benefitting everyone, users and programmers alike.

I’m not quite sure that the current core Krita developers can take on more work if they get paid more. The real challenge probably is to get new developers to join or to fund those who make occassional patches, so they can work more hours fir Krita.

What might help for both cases is community funded bounties. I saw this on Github a few weeks ago, where the developers themselves outsourced certain features with a set budget. Anyone who would be able to deliver the feature would receive the bounty. So let’s say people really want feature X and it gets enough funding, then there could be a bounty set for it.

Then again, users don’t really know all the work that has to be done - and the developers also want to implement things they like to work on - it’s not as easy as pay and you’ll get what you want.

Realistically though, I think lots of users will get disappointed in not seeing their beloved features implemented by the next release. In that sense, it’s better to obtain long term funding. Maybe you don’t like the current work, but do remember that your feature moves up on the lost the more other tasks are finished.


I think this is also a good idea!
Maybe they could get the community involved to fund specific bounties.

Also just to be clear, I am not critiquing Krita’s current work in this thread nor am I expecting everything I want to implemented, majority of what I want may never be implemented and I fully realize that, I am aware Krita is Krita, not a clone of other programs. And I understand not to expect too much from any one update.

Crowdfunding is really common now and people are pretty used to priority/goal lists.
I don’t think people would be too discouraged seeing a desired feature further down on a list, as long as it, and at least some other major desired features are there, most ppl are happy even if they don’t get everything they wished was listed.
And that helps people focus and get excited about more important features in a unified way.

Crowfunding on Krita has already been experimented I think, and what I remember of feedback provided by lead developer, it something they’re not really ready to do again :slight_smile:


1 Like

I love it that you’re looking for ways to help Krita. It would be great if we could come up with a way to increase donations based on what Krita is delivering today. It makes me nervous to tie donation goals to future development.

Don’t kill me for saying this but it kind of sounds like we’d be saying Krita is not good enough today but it might become good enough if you donate.

1 Like

Ah that’s unfortunate, but good to have an answer. Thank you!

It’s not that Krita isn’t “good enough today”, that is subjective, for many it has everything they need.
But for many others it is lacking in some features that do affect peoples workflows.
Hence why they outlined CSP as their biggest competitor and highlighted features of CSP they don’t have and might want to add here: Post Krita 5 Projects - Google Docs

Art programs are always innovating and changing.
To be competitive, or at least to stay relevant, Krita does need to keep up to some degree.
And what is added or not is often influenced by what users want in any program.

1 Like

I think the problem with your suggestion is that you take ideas from time-constrained, or at least project-constrained (where whole project is still supposed to be done in a few years, so it has an implicit tike constraint too) to Krita’s infinite time, limited resources situation. With Kickstarter, having “additional features being funded” makes sense, because with more money, more devs can be hired, or more dev time, so there will be enough funding to get a final product. In Krita’s case, there is a limited number of developers for now, and there is no “final product”, so every feature can be implemented, the only question is when and how long it will take.

It would make more sense to crowdfund for more developers who can spend their whole time working on Krita, first on one feature, then on another.

And the idea of paying for features is quite problematic on it’s own. On Kickstarter, there are stretchgoals above the minimum amount for a reason - first the core needs to be fundes. Who would fund the core of Krita? Shiny new features are, I dunno, maybe 1/4 of the work, and even then they take 4x more time than the developer’s estimate, and I don’t really want to guess how off would a person who doesn’t know much about programming could be.

If Krita had 10x more funding, all the nice features could be worked on simultanously, and would be finished soon. But as long as Krita has as much as it has now, it gets delayed, because one person needs to do a lot, and then they have to stop and, for example, fix bugs in resources system instead…

If every user of Krita donated 1 dollar once, Krita would be set for years with current developer team, or could do a few years of progress at once with more developers.


I specifically said :

There would be no time constraint and it could be explicitly said on the donation page or something.

If crowdfunding for features included costs of hiring more developers wouldn’t that be the same effect?

Krita just got a sponsorship with Intel, and is still taking regular donations from users.
And we can also have stretch goals above the minimum amount.

I would love to find ways for Krita to get more funding!
But I don’t think every user can or would spare $1 for various reasons, and I’m not sure how realistic it is to hope for that.
That said more incentives can certainly encourage those that can to donate $1 or more, which seems more achievable.