List of Priorities for Worker Proposals:

[emigalotti]

We will need something to manage the organization of the paid workers, it's complicated to organize. But it's a good idea.

[Bitcoinfan]

LMSR Prediction Markets.  Nuff said. 

[cylonmaker2053]

bathing suits with exactly that design, but we do need our logo on there somewhere...

If there's no space on the thong, just tattoo the logo. That way you're really invested in the product's success.

LOL i'm embarrassed i wasn't as committed to BTS by suggesting we simply put the logo on the bathing suit

[donkeypong]

bathing suits with exactly that design, but we do need our logo on there somewhere...

If there's no space on the thong, just tattoo the logo. That way you're really invested in the product's success.

[Permie]

 

After a proposal is voted for to determine its importance level to the community, there should be a second phase where potential workers bid for the project. They should give their price, time to complete, and reasons why they should be voted on to do the job. The community votes and the winner is awarded the contract.

This approach cleanly splits the proposal approval from the choice of workers to implement it, and that is very good. It also provides the most efficient path to implementation, and focuses the worker implementation bid primarily on implementation concerns and not on financing.

Should both phases be approved by a vote of shareholders at large or only the proposal phase, with approval of the contract award based on a multi-sig vote of the delegates? I pose that question because the delegates may be better informed about developer qualifications and it may thus be easier to reach a consensus of the best dev team to implement the proposal.

[Thom]

After a proposal is voted for to determine its importance level to the community, there should be a second phase where potential workers bid for the project. They should give their price, time to complete, and reasons why they should be voted on to do the job. The community votes and the winner is awarded the contract.

This approach cleanly splits the proposal approval from the choice of workers to implement it, and that is very good. It also provides the most efficient path to implementation, and focuses the worker implementation bid primarily on implementation concerns and not on financing.

Should both phases be approved by a vote of shareholders at large or only the proposal phase, with approval of the contract award based on a multi-sig vote of the delegates? I pose that question because the delegates may be better informed about developer qualifications and it may thus be easier to reach a consensus of the best dev team to implement the proposal.

[fav]

It seems that we need a tool to manage/deal with the organisation of the paid workers.

Maybe that tool could be created by a paid worked job.  (just throwing the idea)

dposhub

[EstefanTT]

It seems that we need a tool to manage/deal with the organisation of the paid workers.

Maybe that tool could be created by a paid worked job.  (just throwing the idea)

[EstefanTT]

Privacy

Bond market

Projects i'd like to see get funded:

1) Hardware and iOS/Android wallets

2) Merchant POS apps, devices, businesses, whatever...just get bitUSD out into the world

3) Direct fiat-BTS-bitasset on/off ramps so i don't have to keep telling people 'you first need to buy bitcoin and then you can buy bitUSD'

Not necessarily in that order

[Pheonike]

After a proposal is voted for to determine its importance level to the community, there should be a second phase where potential workers bid for the project. They should give their price, time to complete, and reasons why they should be voted on to do the job. The community votes and the winner is awarded the contract.

[Erlich Bachman]

Initially, we probably won't have enough money to fund more than one project at a time.

Another project to fund:  pay off the Moonstone fundraiser balance $110,000 and they will release the code as MIT open source.

[Permie]

What I imagined here was that a project concept can be promoted by the community and then outsourced to developers, rather than having to be initiated by the developers themselves. For example, if the community was keen to pursue a particular strategic direction in development. Whereas there's a risk that an eclectic mix of individual developers coming to the community may simply promote ad-hoc improvements. But it would take time for the community to develop such coherence of thought.

I still think the project proposal format is the most appropriate for the community to vote on though, backed up by the skill of the developers proposing to implement it. This moves beyond a simple job application format.

 

The community could write their own proposals, with the initial benefactors of the funding to be a multi-sig of delegates - who then pay out the funding to workers who prove that they are willing and capable to actually implement it.

We have all these low-trust tools, we should use them and show others what can be done

[cylonmaker2053]

What I imagined here was that a project concept can be promoted by the community and then outsourced to developers, rather than having to be initiated by the developers themselves. For example, if the community was keen to pursue a particular strategic direction in development. Whereas there's a risk that an eclectic mix of individual developers coming to the community may simply promote ad-hoc improvements. But it would take time for the community to develop such coherence of thought.

I still think the project proposal format is the most appropriate for the community to vote on though, backed up by the skill of the developers proposing to implement it. This moves beyond a simple job application format.

 

[starspirit]

Exactly who implements is a secondary consideration, as long as CNX is internally comfortable with feasibility and availability of resources.

Don't get the relation to CNX .. the blockchain can also pay for indepenent 3rd party projects .. like a hardware wallet, public API, coldstorage services, mobile wallet, alternative wallet and many more .. not just core development.

I think such project proposals could in principle be formed by anybody in the community, with input from CNX. Although it is only to be expected that initially most projects will be put forward by CNX or individual developers.

Even though CNX is a heavy dev company I don't see the need for input from them .. in principle we could also have a software development in europe and one in asia .. in the end, the shareholder vote for their hardforks .. not CNX .. and from what I know .. BM doesn't want to have a say in BitShares at all ..

Good points! I was missing the fact this can be expanded to any development teams outside of CNX.

Wouldn't these be much more effective as project proposals than job applications? The core goal is to create value for BTS and demonstrate why any project will do so. So we need to be able to compare the strategic advantages of different work directions. I also suspect most of the community can't easily judge the skills of a developer (CNX itself seems best placed to do that), but they can make judgements on the cost/benefit of a project.

Project proposals would normally include, amongst other things:

- description of project
- benefits
- costs
- risks
- timeframe
- resources

Eventually .. yes but as long as a delegate can hardly pay a single person's expenses I don't see how it could fund a whole project ..
But I agree ..

What I imagined here was that a project concept can be promoted by the community and then outsourced to developers, rather than having to be initiated by the developers themselves. For example, if the community was keen to pursue a particular strategic direction in development. Whereas there's a risk that an eclectic mix of individual developers coming to the community may simply promote ad-hoc improvements. But it would take time for the community to develop such coherence of thought.

I still think the project proposal format is the most appropriate for the community to vote on though, backed up by the skill of the developers proposing to implement it. This moves beyond a simple job application format.

[cass]

Even though CNX is a heavy dev company I don't see the need for input from them .. in principle we could also have a software development in europe and one in asia .. in the end, the shareholder vote for their hardforks .. not CNX .. and from what I know .. BM doesn't want to have a say in BitShares at all ..

the more devs joining our community, the better; esp when they're distributed around the planet working on tangentially related projects making use of our products. hopefully the release of 2.0 sparks a lot more autonomous dev involvement.