Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Division of team contraproductive  (Read 666 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Division of team contraproductive
« on: October 22, 2014, 10:33:03 PM »

First I want to say that I am very happy with what BitShares has become! Also I admire the passion and idealism Larimer and co put into BitShares. A groundbreaking product (BitAssets + lots of innovations like DPOS and TITAN) has been produced within relatively little time.

To following should stimulate a hopefully fruitful discussion about an issue that will always be a balance.

I am asking (myself and I3) whether the tendency towards atomic entities (individual teams, individual developers, no hierarchies whatsoever) is practically helpful for the realization of all the BitShares ideas and projects.

Maybe it is naive but wouldn't it help if all the devs would work on all the bitshares ideas as a team rather than individuals who do all kinds of uncoordinated things. (was maybe a bit exaggerated but i have the impression that this is the tendency)

There is another (related) issue: Transparency/Openness towards the forum: I think this is an important goal worth achieving. The question is just whether this goal would be in danger if "strategic proposals posts" or other ideas, plans and side projects (the merger proposal would certainly be an example) would first be discussed with the "team" to a point where they are "finished". I, as a stakeholder in all BTS ideas, would wish for a "PR strategy" that is sensitive towards the sometimes subtle subtexts conveyed which can result in FUD which can hurt the project long term because shareholder see the BitShares dev team as not capable of handling "investor relations" well, also given that the Chinese community panics easily at certain "pain words". That would practically include that all fundamental strategic posts are vetted with the team first so that a solution can be found that is part of a bigger picture where the consequences have been thought about (instead of giving the forum/shareholders a weekend of a FUD/enthusiasm roller coaster which will overall always be more painful because uncertainty is always perceived as negative).

I know that what I described above can never be reached! It will always be a process and like BM said it will always be foggy where everyone can only see so far. What I propose though is that a team that works as a team (and not as individuals doing whatever they like) might also just see 10 meters ahead like on individual but might see more interconnections and unconsidered consequences. After that team vetting process the forum public would be helpful like it has greatly been in the past.

Here is my philosophical perspective on hierarchies:
I totally oppose any hierarchies with respect to social standings. Hierarchies separate artificially. There is no difference among anything that lives when the essential core is what is looked at. I personally respect people for two reasons only: Because they are humans and behave as such (being trustworthy, emphatic, loving...) and because they have good arguments and/or skills. The power (over others someone has) is no reason to for me to treat anyone any different.
On the other side hierarchies can be functional which do not effect the value of individuals (as described above). And there is something like a "team spirit" that holds people together through trust beyond what is necessary for the individual.

What I head in mind I think was "a normal startup team" that works towards a common goal. I also see that the whole forum is kind of the extended (vetting) team which has lots of value. It's all a balance ;)

I have to add that this IS ONLY MY OUTSIDE IMPRESSION which I wanted to share to ignite some discussion about the way to get most effectively towards our goals.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 10:40:00 PM by delulo »

Offline bytemaster

Re: Division of team contraproductive
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2014, 10:36:24 PM »
We had a large team meeting today to discuss all of this.... major changing coming in the way we handle things under the BitShares unified brand.

 
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BTS: Stan
Re: Division of team contraproductive
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2014, 11:53:53 PM »
Think of it as a team of independent entrepreneurs working together toward common goals.  There is no stove-pipe any more since all benefit from contributions to a common figure of merit:  BTS price.  Thus incentive to cooperate is maximized.

We will be eliminating single points of attack because this team can now work together from anywhere in free space with no common dependencies in fiat space.

Decentralized Grand Unification.

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline luckybit

Re: Division of team contraproductive
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2014, 01:42:45 AM »
Think of it as a team of independent entrepreneurs working together toward common goals.  There is no stove-pipe any more since all benefit from contributions to a common figure of merit:  BTS price.  Thus incentive to cooperate is maximized.

We will be eliminating single points of attack because this team can now work together from anywhere in free space with no common dependencies in fiat space.

Decentralized Grand Unification.

This is starting to look like the formation of the United States of America.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12267
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Division of team contraproductive
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2014, 07:03:02 AM »
nice post @ delulo .. +5%

Things have changed alot lately .. and IMHO .. to the better ..
I am surely not the thinker Dan and Stand are .. but the system that start to grow now look awesome in my mind already!
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
    • View Profile
Re: Division of team contraproductive
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2014, 07:13:03 AM »
nice post @ delulo .. +5%

Things have changed alot lately .. and IMHO .. to the better ..
I am surely not the thinker Dan and Stand are .. but the system that start to grow now look awesome in my mind already!

If there is ever bigger fanboy than me...it is xerox  :)
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile


Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12267
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Division of team contraproductive
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2014, 02:11:26 PM »
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline fuzzy

Re: Division of team contraproductive
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2014, 02:32:00 PM »
Think of it as a team of independent entrepreneurs working together toward common goals.  There is no stove-pipe any more since all benefit from contributions to a common figure of merit:  BTS price.  Thus incentive to cooperate is maximized.

We will be eliminating single points of attack because this team can now work together from anywhere in free space with no common dependencies in fiat space.

Decentralized Grand Unification.

This is starting to look like the formation of the United States of America.

 +5%
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: Division of team contraproductive
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2014, 10:40:01 AM »
I agree that the new paradigm of delegate developers can be long term game changing.

On the other side my confidence in I3 and BitShares initially came from the fact that there is a professional team behind it that takes the lead and sets a clear agenda and can make decisions (even if it are just recommendations). The one major hindrance for NXT is their lack of unifying leadership.

I am just trying to be realistic (not romantic).

A clearly communicated message as what to honor in the future (AGS/PTS or BTS) would be an example: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406

[in the end I hope that my criticism (i try to put our there as constructive as possible) will help more than only cheering at everything]

edit: All easier said than done! I still think there would be room for improvement if strategic decisions are first discussed with a more inner circle trying to foresee some of the consequences of spontaneous thoughts instead of re-engineering the BitShares system live in forum discussions. Personally (as a shareholder) I don't have a need for that kind of openness. I trust you and your decision making capabilities. I can comment on proposals later.
I am convinced that the emotional reactions we currently observe (irrational sell pressure  on BTSX and people making irrational and personally offensive posts) could be vastly mitigated by only putting strategic posts out there what were vetted by the "strategy team" (who ever that consists of) and by making this posts a "positive story" (every decision can be sold a something good)*.

*I3 tends to sell their stories/decisions either not at all or in a heavily exaggerated way which make it seem "to good to be good" (= feels untrustworthy). 
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 11:08:04 AM by delulo »

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BTS: starspirit
Re: Division of team contraproductive
« Reply #11 on: October 24, 2014, 11:16:55 AM »
edit: All easier said than done! I still think there would be room for improvement if strategic decisions are first discussed with a more inner circle trying to foresee some of the consequences of spontaneous thoughts instead of re-engineering the BitShares system live in forum discussions. Personally (as a shareholder) I don't have a need for that kind of openness. I trust you and your decision making capabilities. I can comment on proposals later.
There have been a lot of expected and well-founded complaints about BM putting proposals into the threads that have hurt people financially, leading BM to make subsequent comments about doing less of this in future. But before we decide that's the best approach, let's think what would happen if decisions were made in an inner circle, and then put to the community only in final form. Unavoidably, just as many people would get hurt, and just as many would be unhappy. Only now, there is absolutely no chance of movement on the proposal based on feedback, and therefore the final solution may end up being even less optimal.

Also there are many claims that early and maybe ambiguous statements make people panic sell. I don't think this is necessarily true - people buy or sell based on the information and probabilities as they perceive them at the time. By the time the proposal is finalised, these movements have largely played out. The market gyrations would have happened anyway if the whole thing was made in secret and suddenly disclosed to everybody, perhaps more viciously. Only difference is timing.

I agree some better framing and PR is warranted, especially with regard to messages getting out to an external audience. But I really hope that does not mean that transparency reduces a whole lot. After all, I see transparency as one of the major advantages of this business model over traditional ones.

I know a lot of people feel wronged and will disagree with me, that's OK.

Edit: Maybe something that could work better is to indicate a date and time in advance of when an important proposal is going to be made. At least it does not appear quite as spontaneous, and everybody has advance notice and it does not feel like we need to constantly watch the forum for fear of missing a radical proposal.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 11:21:10 AM by starspirit »

Offline jae208

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
    • View Profile
Re: Division of team contraproductive
« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2014, 11:18:37 AM »
Think of it as a team of independent entrepreneurs working together toward common goals.  There is no stove-pipe any more since all benefit from contributions to a common figure of merit:  BTS price.  Thus incentive to cooperate is maximized.

We will be eliminating single points of attack because this team can now work together from anywhere in free space with no common dependencies in fiat space.

Decentralized Grand Unification.


 +5%

You're all doing something remarkable here. Very exciting time to be alive!
http://bitsharestutorials.com A work in progress
Subscribe to the Youtube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/BitsharesTutorials

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: Division of team contraproductive
« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2014, 11:28:36 AM »
edit: All easier said than done! I still think there would be room for improvement if strategic decisions are first discussed with a more inner circle trying to foresee some of the consequences of spontaneous thoughts instead of re-engineering the BitShares system live in forum discussions. Personally (as a shareholder) I don't have a need for that kind of openness. I trust you and your decision making capabilities. I can comment on proposals later.
There have been a lot of expected and well-founded complaints about BM putting proposals into the threads that have hurt people financially, leading BM to make subsequent comments about doing less of this in future. But before we decide that's the best approach, let's think what would happen if decisions were made in an inner circle, and then put to the community only in final form. Unavoidably, just as many people would get hurt, and just as many would be unhappy. Only now, there is absolutely no chance of movement on the proposal based on feedback, and therefore the final solution may end up being even less optimal.

Also there are many claims that early and maybe ambiguous statements make people panic sell. I don't think this is necessarily true - people buy or sell based on the information and probabilities as they perceive them at the time. By the time the proposal is finalised, these movements have largely played out. The market gyrations would have happened anyway if the whole thing was made in secret and suddenly disclosed to everybody, perhaps more viciously. Only difference is timing.

I agree some better framing and PR is warranted, especially with regard to messages getting out to an external audience. But I really hope that does not mean that transparency reduces a whole lot. After all, I see transparency as one of the major advantages of this business model over traditional ones.

I know a lot of people feel wronged and will disagree with me, that's OK.

Edit: Maybe something that could work better is to indicate a date and time in advance of when an important proposal is going to be made. At least it does not appear quite as spontaneous, and everybody has advance notice and it does not feel like we need to constantly watch the forum for fear of missing a radical proposal.
I don't think openness would be compromised at all! The proposals would just be more "whole" and there would be as much room for feedback that changes things.
The only thing that would change is that things can be sold better and it would reduce uncertainty. That whole merger thing could have been sold a a big deal from the beginning and might have increased the BTSX price. Markets are more emotional than rational and well informed in the short term...

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BTS: starspirit
Re: Division of team contraproductive
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2014, 11:45:02 AM »
edit: All easier said than done! I still think there would be room for improvement if strategic decisions are first discussed with a more inner circle trying to foresee some of the consequences of spontaneous thoughts instead of re-engineering the BitShares system live in forum discussions. Personally (as a shareholder) I don't have a need for that kind of openness. I trust you and your decision making capabilities. I can comment on proposals later.
There have been a lot of expected and well-founded complaints about BM putting proposals into the threads that have hurt people financially, leading BM to make subsequent comments about doing less of this in future. But before we decide that's the best approach, let's think what would happen if decisions were made in an inner circle, and then put to the community only in final form. Unavoidably, just as many people would get hurt, and just as many would be unhappy. Only now, there is absolutely no chance of movement on the proposal based on feedback, and therefore the final solution may end up being even less optimal.

Also there are many claims that early and maybe ambiguous statements make people panic sell. I don't think this is necessarily true - people buy or sell based on the information and probabilities as they perceive them at the time. By the time the proposal is finalised, these movements have largely played out. The market gyrations would have happened anyway if the whole thing was made in secret and suddenly disclosed to everybody, perhaps more viciously. Only difference is timing.

I agree some better framing and PR is warranted, especially with regard to messages getting out to an external audience. But I really hope that does not mean that transparency reduces a whole lot. After all, I see transparency as one of the major advantages of this business model over traditional ones.

I know a lot of people feel wronged and will disagree with me, that's OK.

Edit: Maybe something that could work better is to indicate a date and time in advance of when an important proposal is going to be made. At least it does not appear quite as spontaneous, and everybody has advance notice and it does not feel like we need to constantly watch the forum for fear of missing a radical proposal.
I don't think openness would be compromised at all! The proposals would just be more "whole" and there would be as much room for feedback that changes things.
The only thing that would change is that things can be sold better and it would reduce uncertainty. That whole merger thing could have been sold a a big deal from the beginning and might have increased the BTSX price. Markets are more emotional than rational and well informed in the short term...
OK I hear you, more thought into framing the message and context more fully beforehand would save a lot of unnecessary angst, agreed. Also the more I think about it, maybe there should be a regular timepoint for important updates, or as I suggested earlier, advance notice of material announcements. That way at least everybody can get the information simultaneously.

 

Google+