16) Have a commission system for the bounty operator/organizer. The goal is to motivate rapid question/answer/evaluation cycles and divide up the task of running the bounty in addition to completing the bounty.
16) Have a commission system for the bounty operator/organizer. The goal is to motivate rapid question/answer/evaluation cycles and divide up the task of running the bounty in addition to completing the bounty.
what do you mean by a commission system? How do you imagine it working?
16) Have a commission system for the bounty operator/organizer. The goal is to motivate rapid question/answer/evaluation cycles and divide up the task of running the bounty in addition to completing the bounty.
what do you mean by a commission system? How do you imagine it working?
Creating and managing bounties requires work on two sides. Both sides should have incentive to settle the bounty as quickly as possible.
We want to hire bounty managers that are paid by the number of successful bounties they can manage.
We need this fast, it's getting complicated to sort out.
I was recently inspired by this: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/emergent-networks-and-falling-hierarchy/#.Ur9syGQW3M4 (http://letstalkbitcoin.com/emergent-networks-and-falling-hierarchy/#.Ur9syGQW3M4) on emergent networks.Study the work of John Nash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brkhuetnJmM (the Stag hunt) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stzPcqmyhI4 . There does not always have to be cut throat competition. That only happens when cut throat competition is the easiest winning strategy and that winning strategy is promoted by the market.
Response to 1) I think there will always be cut-throat competition. On this project for instance, let's say there are two teams working on the problem. Only one team can win. That means it's going to be a complete waste of time for the losing team. Perhaps someone should have the unfortunate job of discouraging teams that are on the wrong track and have a low chance of winning. This would minimize wasted time. If the team was really spirited though, they could pivot and move in a new direction.
(By the by, I'm putting together a team for this. I'm thinking a three person team to set the outline and work out details. The team members must be willing to do a group video or phone conference. Our team would then set smaller bounties for other community members to write specific parts of the manual. This should be a fast way to get the job done.)
I was recently inspired by this: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/emergent-networks-and-falling-hierarchy/#.Ur9syGQW3M4 (http://letstalkbitcoin.com/emergent-networks-and-falling-hierarchy/#.Ur9syGQW3M4) on emergent networks.Study the work of John Nash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brkhuetnJmM (the Stag hunt) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stzPcqmyhI4 . There does not always have to be cut throat competition. That only happens when cut throat competition is the easiest winning strategy and that winning strategy is promoted by the market.
Response to 1) I think there will always be cut-throat competition. On this project for instance, let's say there are two teams working on the problem. Only one team can win. That means it's going to be a complete waste of time for the losing team. Perhaps someone should have the unfortunate job of discouraging teams that are on the wrong track and have a low chance of winning. This would minimize wasted time. If the team was really spirited though, they could pivot and move in a new direction.
(By the by, I'm putting together a team for this. I'm thinking a three person team to set the outline and work out details. The team members must be willing to do a group video or phone conference. Our team would then set smaller bounties for other community members to write specific parts of the manual. This should be a fast way to get the job done.)
So we should not reward cut throat competition and instead reward cooperative competition. We are all on the same team as part of the same community/economic ecosystem and certain cut throat activities damage our ecosystem. Cheating for example is not good for anyone who wants to make a living following the rules. Just like how botnets aren't good for any of us who mined following the rules. If someone were just out to win in the most cut throat fashion then creating botnets is more lucrative than being fair, stealing someone elses ideas is more lucrative than coming up with your own, and sabotaging someone else's work is more lucrative than competing on merit.
If you look at how governments operate, they are cut throat and never compete fairly with each other. If we are trying to build the ideal free market then we should do what we can to try to understand how game theory can be used to produce cooperative capitalism so that competition is used only to make the overall economic ecosystem stronger, more robust, etc.
I was recently inspired by this: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/emergent-networks-and-falling-hierarchy/#.Ur9syGQW3M4 (http://letstalkbitcoin.com/emergent-networks-and-falling-hierarchy/#.Ur9syGQW3M4) on emergent networks.Study the work of John Nash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brkhuetnJmM (the Stag hunt) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stzPcqmyhI4 . There does not always have to be cut throat competition. That only happens when cut throat competition is the easiest winning strategy and that winning strategy is promoted by the market.
Response to 1) I think there will always be cut-throat competition. On this project for instance, let's say there are two teams working on the problem. Only one team can win. That means it's going to be a complete waste of time for the losing team. Perhaps someone should have the unfortunate job of discouraging teams that are on the wrong track and have a low chance of winning. This would minimize wasted time. If the team was really spirited though, they could pivot and move in a new direction.
(By the by, I'm putting together a team for this. I'm thinking a three person team to set the outline and work out details. The team members must be willing to do a group video or phone conference. Our team would then set smaller bounties for other community members to write specific parts of the manual. This should be a fast way to get the job done.)
So we should not reward cut throat competition and instead reward cooperative competition. We are all on the same team as part of the same community/economic ecosystem and certain cut throat activities damage our ecosystem. Cheating for example is not good for anyone who wants to make a living following the rules. Just like how botnets aren't good for any of us who mined following the rules. If someone were just out to win in the most cut throat fashion then creating botnets is more lucrative than being fair, stealing someone elses ideas is more lucrative than coming up with your own, and sabotaging someone else's work is more lucrative than competing on merit.
If you look at how governments operate, they are cut throat and never compete fairly with each other. If we are trying to build the ideal free market then we should do what we can to try to understand how game theory can be used to produce cooperative capitalism so that competition is used only to make the overall economic ecosystem stronger, more robust, etc.
I watched the videos but I don't think they apply to my example of two teams, because the two teams are competing over one resource. Pepsi and Coke compete in a market, not for a single customer. The videos do apply to members of a team working to complete tasks. In that situation, some people can hunt stags and some people can catch hares, and we can all have something to eat.
Working on a bounty like this is risky. You always have the chance of being beaten by a lone genius who can produce things quickly.
I think there must be a principle that says every person or team working on a bounty must make their intentions public on the bounty thread before they start. So that way individuals and teams can decide how to proceed.
I would like to provide an idea to enhance the process of make decision of final bounty amount.
1. 3I post a Bounty Requirement with several optional bounty amoumts. e.g 100 PTS, 200 PTS, 400 PTS
2. Forum users join, and voting for that, which they think should be the approximate price for the task. The bounty with most user support would be the final bounty given to someone complete the task.
3. Maybe, even voting for the final effect of the result of task, give 90%, 100%, 110%.
This could be just a small improvement, but can attract the community to join and contribute in some degree.
About how long should developers expect to have to support their contributions after the bounty has been awarded to them? Also, what kinds of support will they be expected to provide?
We should have our initial thoughts and ideas ready to show by sometime tomorrow. This will in no way be a final entry, unless you're willing to pay the full bounty for what we have already. We'll just be looking for feedback for what we have so far
Here's what we've come up with so far. It still needs a lot of revision, re-organizing, and it can probably be shortened quite a bit before we're ready to submit it. We'd love to hear what people think of it so far.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13WcUclETG-tmlAIxdO39E56uWQnPIozGHOEP4fBGQeY/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/13WcUclETG-tmlAIxdO39E56uWQnPIozGHOEP4fBGQeY/edit?usp=sharing)
Here's what we've come up with so far. It still needs a lot of revision, re-organizing, and it can probably be shortened quite a bit before we're ready to submit it. We'd love to hear what people think of it so far.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13WcUclETG-tmlAIxdO39E56uWQnPIozGHOEP4fBGQeY/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/13WcUclETG-tmlAIxdO39E56uWQnPIozGHOEP4fBGQeY/edit?usp=sharing)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bONQMtAFlpJO3T4MDAW-fXZBrE6iSBp4LWZ2RYX3Zc8/edit?usp=sharing
I copied phoenix work then tried my hand on his almost complete work, great job by the way.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bONQMtAFlpJO3T4MDAW-fXZBrE6iSBp4LWZ2RYX3Zc8/edit?usp=sharingWe are also incorporating the tips for bounty posters to our version
I copied phoenix work then tried my hand on his almost complete work, great job by the way.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bONQMtAFlpJO3T4MDAW-fXZBrE6iSBp4LWZ2RYX3Zc8/edit?usp=sharingWe are also incorporating the tips for bounty posters to our version
I copied phoenix work then tried my hand on his almost complete work, great job by the way.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bONQMtAFlpJO3T4MDAW-fXZBrE6iSBp4LWZ2RYX3Zc8/edit?usp=sharingWe are also incorporating the tips for bounty posters to our version
I copied phoenix work then tried my hand on his almost complete work, great job by the way.
Thanks for the submission. I am providing feedback now, but want to make one thing very clear. The price tag I placed on this particular bounty is reflective of the amount of work I expect it to take to really nail down solid bounty rules and to present them in a professional manner (more than a plaintext document).
That said here are some questions:
1) How are mediators selected and what authority do they have? How does this conflict with 'customer is always right'?
2) How do you measure compliance with clear expectations? Obviously it is in the best interest of the submitter to attempt to provide as much clarity as possible, but sometimes what the submitter is looking for is someone who will help define the specific requirements and explore options. I think bounties are not contracts, but an expression of interest to buy. Take the bounty for this document, I expect to buy bounty rules/procedures that are worth every PTS we pay for them. To achieve that threshold the rules must be very good at preventing conflict, managing expectations, and encouraging collaboration. Rules that cause conflict by establishing the expectation of a contract or particular outcome in need of dispute resolution are less valuable than rules that avoid most of these conflicts before they start.
3) For software bounties there should be a procedure for quality control that encourages people to find bugs and coding violations as well as test the build on multiple platforms. Software bounties are probably going to require the most rigorous procedures to ensure proper code review. Bugs discovered are deducted from the submission payout or my result in the submission being rejected until bugs are fixed. How do we structure the rules so that there is proper incentive for proactive quality control?
That is the thoughts I have for now.
I've set up a google site (https://sites.google.com/site/invictusbounties/home (https://sites.google.com/site/invictusbounties/home)) displaying our set of rules, as well as an idea of a submission form and a sample bounty and form
I've set up a google site (https://sites.google.com/site/invictusbounties/home (https://sites.google.com/site/invictusbounties/home)) displaying our set of rules, as well as an idea of a submission form and a sample bounty and form
A site is a pretty cool idea, but would it be fine for users to have to leave the form to read the Rules and Procedures? I'm trying to figure out a way of formatting the document so it's viewable as a sticky on the Bounty Child-board, that way everyone will notice it when they visit the board.
Ok, cool. Not sure trying it now. I'm thinking i'll convert to image files, upload and link.I've set up a google site (https://sites.google.com/site/invictusbounties/home (https://sites.google.com/site/invictusbounties/home)) displaying our set of rules, as well as an idea of a submission form and a sample bounty and form
A site is a pretty cool idea, but would it be fine for users to have to leave the form to read the Rules and Procedures? I'm trying to figure out a way of formatting the document so it's viewable as a sticky on the Bounty Child-board, that way everyone will notice it when they visit the board.
The site is just to combine the form, example, and main document into one place
Is it possible to display a .pdf in the forum?
I am thinking of perhaps re-naming it
how about
Bounty Code of Conduct: Rules and Procedures
or
Bounty Rules, Procedures and Code of Conduct
We expect the bounty area to be kind of like a be-spoke shop where one walks in and asks for a custom product, us the applicants then offer our solutions and the customer picks one that meets his requirement. As a result there is a certain kind of behaviour required to keep things courteous and civil.
This is starting to take shape. There is a lot of redundant information reading through it. Conciseness and clarity would be helpful. If you could explain the bounty process in 1 page that would be ideal, then have a couple of extra pages on dealing with teams, bugs, etc.
Github is required for code.
Agreement on division is required prior to submission.
Philosophy of setting bounties at in excess of expected costs should be covered.
Excellent, it is minimal. Coordinating efforts for a purpose requires a person to
understand what he is working for, you have to define quality
and manager manages the quantity.
So, manager controls token dispense. Plus workers may pull from token dispense to give to team mates in interdependent tasks.
Maybe even to the manager, but I believe 20% of the tokens would be the right amount.
Now, referral payments are included.
So, everyone is motivated to see their tokens gain 100% or maybe more of the bounty value.
They understand they are in this game together. Like we do in coin :)
So, manager controls token dispense. Plus workers may pull from token dispense to give to team mates in interdependent tasks.
Maybe even to the manager, but I believe 20% of the tokens would be the right amount.
Now, referral payments are included.
So, everyone is motivated to see their tokens gain 100% or maybe more of the bounty value.
They understand they are in this game together. Like we do in coin :)
I like your idea of splitting up a project in phases. So far we have not divided up any project into time-dependent phases (where phase 2 can start only when phase 1 is finished). This allows to split the bounty according to the amount of labour required for each phase.
But I dont see how using tokens is going to help us? We are already using PTS do this. The manager gets an amount of PTS to be distributed over a team of workers including himself. Dont you think we can use PTS as tokens?
When do you dispense the PTS?? after completion??
Right?
The idea of managers sounds more like actual employment (contract), kinda what you were insiting should not be the case. I support your getting someone to focus mainly on this, but i think one person is enough and their terms of work will not be part of Bounties. they could be a part time employee whose compensation is discussed by you and that person.
Trying to integrate too many middle-men, processes and accounting will result in a complicated system that will be prone to hiccups and miscommunication.
While I am working on BitShares I have delegated this bounty to Stan to provide feedback on. If you are looking for feedback, ping him. Stan and I are in frequent communication so he will summarize the progress for me.
Keep up the good work.
lets wrap things up.
From my opinion, there is one thing that is mistreated here from the very beginning. Pls accept it as a suggestion not criticism.
If you are trying buy product or service you simply go to the markets and buy it. Markets for graphic design and software products already exist and it has its specific rules so you don’t have to bother with inventing yours.
You need simple procedures for election of project managers, defining the tasks and procedures for realizing payments upon negotiated conditions. Bounties offered here on the forum, or any other dedicated place, are not the best thing money can buy. These are not developed markets for graphic design or software products. You could get far better solutions for logo design or web site look from places like freelance.com then you will get like this, and it will cost less.
There is one more benefit you will get like this. Word, that somebody pays usd 200 for a logo or usd 20.000 for a web site will spread with speed of light and you will get publicity that you couldn’t think of. Those people from all over the world work hard for much less.
lets wrap things up.
Stan has reviewed your document and is preparing a response. I think it is just about done.
lets wrap things up.
Stan has reviewed your document and is preparing a response. I think it is just about done.
I just had a horrible thought. What if the document I've been reviewing is not the latest one? :o
Would you re-post a link to the official latest document(s) I need to look at, just to be sure?
Thanks
lets wrap things up.
The document I have been reviewing seems like a good start on a spec for what we were hoping for.
The rules are there but they don't seem to be self-enforcing.
The art of game theory is to engineer the right outcome by constructing the incentives in such a way that people do the right thing naturally in their own self interest without requiring an outside party to have to enforce the rules. Enforcement by an outside force always leads to conflict and hard feelings - what we are hoping to avoid.
A simple example: The Quality Assurance function (missing from the current process) might be set up such that the QA person gets a share of the developer's share proportional to the number of bugs found. This incentivizes the developer not to have bugs when the product is submitted to QA. And the buyer knows that the product is probably bug free if a properly incentivized QA person couldn't collect a big payout. But the process still has to reward the QA person for trying, lest they be discouraged by receiving perfect code too often. The best QA person might be a competitor who has plenty of motivation for finding fault. If your competitor can't find a fault, you've got a really great product.
Game theory logic like this is largely missing from the product so far. I like the fact that the document hasn't become bloated, but it seems to put the burden on the customer to determine if all the rules have been followed or not.If we are to maximize the number of bounties available to the community, we can't be refereeing all the internal steps of the process.
For example: "Submissions with bugs may be penalized and may result in complete disqualification." How does the customer know that there are no bugs and are we expecting the customer to do the penalizing instead of the natural processes built into the system? If we have to do that ourselves, we won't have enough time available to sponsor many bounties!In short - the current document does not define a process that is scalable to the number of bounties we hope to offer.
Innovations are needed here. How does this document put in place a system that delivers a quality product that an already overloaded customer can buy with confidence?
There is lots of Risk here both for the delivery person / company and for yourself and myself as an small investor. The bounties I have seen differ significantly in price (a new website, no idea what I want), json ticker and infographics, there is no measurement of work / plan for each actual bounty. Mainly I have lots of spare money (pts), give me something quick, I don't know how to price it but I will give you what I consider what is fair considering the risk you take.
I believe you need a clear and granular road map, and you should focus on very small bounties, each bounty should be rewarded for the completed work of week maximum, ideally a couple of days to reduce the risk for both parties.
You should borrow from agile methodologies, and match each bounty to a task in an iteration. For example building a website has many tasks and iterations, this should drive both collaboration between the people delivering the bounties plus also reduce the risk of knowledge management and key dependencies.
The owner of a particular work stream should publish the work required 2 weeks in advance to get the required people involved, ideally if you manage to get a team of 10 (ie developers) the work will be delivered by the same team with what I assume with a constant turnover of 2 people.
To cut the story short, small tasks, quick delivery, self organising teams, clear road map and most important good requirements for each iteration. Most important an iteration can be just a "mock up" of something to get good ideas of a requirement.
Hopefully it gives you some ideas or most probably I am just preaching to the choir. :)
lets wrap things up.
Here's a good test of your product:
How does it facilitate "wrapping things up"?
Should you produce a checklist of all of the customer's published desirements and how they have been satisfied or do you expect the customer to do that function (and, if so, why?)
Or do you have a process where someone else is called in to do that QA function on your product?
Please apply your document to your own bounty and see if it works. ;)
The document I have been reviewing seems like a good start on a spec for what we were hoping for.
The rules are there but they don't seem to be self-enforcing.
The art of game theory is to engineer the right outcome by constructing the incentives in such a way that people do the right thing naturally in their own self interest without requiring an outside party to have to enforce the rules. Enforcement by an outside force always leads to conflict and hard feelings - what we are hoping to avoid.
A simple example: The Quality Assurance function (missing from the current process) might be set up such that the QA person gets a share of the developer's share proportional to the number of bugs found. This incentivizes the developer not to have bugs when the product is submitted to QA. And the buyer knows that the product is probably bug free if a properly incentivized QA person couldn't collect a big payout. But the process still has to reward the QA person for trying, lest they be discouraged by receiving perfect code too often. The best QA person might be a competitor who has plenty of motivation for finding fault. If your competitor can't find a fault, you've got a really great product.
Game theory logic like this is largely missing from the product so far. I like the fact that the document hasn't become bloated, but it seems to put the burden on the customer to determine if all the rules have been followed or not.If we are to maximize the number of bounties available to the community, we can't be refereeing all the internal steps of the process.
For example: "Submissions with bugs may be penalized and may result in complete disqualification." How does the customer know that there are no bugs and are we expecting the customer to do the penalizing instead of the natural processes built into the system? If we have to do that ourselves, we won't have enough time available to sponsor many bounties!In short - the current document does not define a process that is scalable to the number of bounties we hope to offer.
Innovations are needed here. How does this document put in place a system that delivers a quality product that an already overloaded customer can buy with confidence?
I see your point but i think the idea of middlemen will hamper the trust system that is used with Bounties, especially with regard to coding. If i deliver a product and the QA guy fails to see a bug, but it appears later on when the program is in use, I may say that such a bug was not there when I gave it to you and it was introduced later. Whereas the trust system encourages cooperation, see the only Bounty listed as [Paid], me toast and Freetrade did that and were paid. Even before Dan offered to pay, we were still addressing any issues on any board that are related to it.
Bounties shouldn't need enforcement, simply, you ask for something and I work to produce it. I hand in an entry, you check it out and it if does the required task well then I get paid, if there are issues, you point them out and I go back to work on them, kind of like what we are doing now.
You already mention that enforcement by outsiders leads to hard feelings, isnt a middleman an outsider? Also the inclusion of a middleman open up the possibility of corruption. There are sometimes huge funds involved and that could cause collusion.
I was under the impression that this document was to encourage team work and quality, but if competitors are at each others neck trying to find fault in the other's work, we'll never get anything done.
However, if this is the new direction you wish for i will make it so.
The document I have been reviewing seems like a good start on a spec for what we were hoping for.
The rules are there but they don't seem to be self-enforcing.
The art of game theory is to engineer the right outcome by constructing the incentives in such a way that people do the right thing naturally in their own self interest without requiring an outside party to have to enforce the rules. Enforcement by an outside force always leads to conflict and hard feelings - what we are hoping to avoid.
A simple example: The Quality Assurance function (missing from the current process) might be set up such that the QA person gets a share of the developer's share proportional to the number of bugs found. This incentivizes the developer not to have bugs when the product is submitted to QA. And the buyer knows that the product is probably bug free if a properly incentivized QA person couldn't collect a big payout. But the process still has to reward the QA person for trying, lest they be discouraged by receiving perfect code too often. The best QA person might be a competitor who has plenty of motivation for finding fault. If your competitor can't find a fault, you've got a really great product.
Game theory logic like this is largely missing from the product so far. I like the fact that the document hasn't become bloated, but it seems to put the burden on the customer to determine if all the rules have been followed or not.If we are to maximize the number of bounties available to the community, we can't be refereeing all the internal steps of the process.
For example: "Submissions with bugs may be penalized and may result in complete disqualification." How does the customer know that there are no bugs and are we expecting the customer to do the penalizing instead of the natural processes built into the system? If we have to do that ourselves, we won't have enough time available to sponsor many bounties!In short - the current document does not define a process that is scalable to the number of bounties we hope to offer.
Innovations are needed here. How does this document put in place a system that delivers a quality product that an already overloaded customer can buy with confidence?
I see your point but i think the idea of middlemen will hamper the trust system that is used with Bounties, especially with regard to coding. If i deliver a product and the QA guy fails to see a bug, but it appears later on when the program is in use, I may say that such a bug was not there when I gave it to you and it was introduced later. Whereas the trust system encourages cooperation, see the only Bounty listed as [Paid], me toast and Freetrade did that and were paid. Even before Dan offered to pay, we were still addressing any issues on any board that are related to it.
Bounties shouldn't need enforcement, simply, you ask for something and I work to produce it. I hand in an entry, you check it out and it if does the required task well then I get paid, if there are issues, you point them out and I go back to work on them, kind of like what we are doing now.
You already mention that enforcement by outsiders leads to hard feelings, isnt a middleman an outsider? Also the inclusion of a middleman open up the possibility of corruption. There are sometimes huge funds involved and that could cause collusion.
I was under the impression that this document was to encourage team work and quality, but if competitors are at each others neck trying to find fault in the other's work, we'll never get anything done.
However, if this is the new direction you wish for i will make it so.
My intention was to show an example of engineering a process so everyone working in their own self-interest wind up naturally producing a desired result. This doesn't necessarily mean that the example is the right way to do it.
But I would like to see how we can get to bytemaster's model of having people produce a product that a customer can just buy. Apple doesn't expect its customers to participate in the development and QA (although it may use focus groups to refine requirements which is comparable to what we are doing right now.) If they can produce insanely great products for customers that didn't even know they wanted an iPod, how can we replicate that process?
Again, you cite success when bytemaster is deeply involved but that doesn't scale because there is not enough of bytemaster.
How do we define a process that demands less of his time so that we can move the industry forward faster?
(Obviously we could grow Invictus with a whole staff that does that, but that path leads to centralization and the Dark Side.)
I have hired someone (cannot announce until he notifies his existing employer) who's job it will be to turn my high-level needs into detailed bounties and manage it to completion. He will be paid a commission on whether or not a valid submission is made for the bounty (I will be the judge). This should motivate him to set up the bounty rules, spec, etc, in a way that makes it most likely to get a result.
I think that it will require someone working with me on a partial payroll basis to pull this off. That said, I could imagine hiring a few such people who will be bounty managers responsible for delivering the final product. Under the current system, these would be the team leaders who then allocate sub bounties and keep a cut for themselves.
lets wrap things up.
Here's a good test of your product:
How does it facilitate "wrapping things up"?
Should you produce a checklist of all of the customer's published desirements and how they have been satisfied or do you expect the customer to do that function (and, if so, why?)
Or do you have a process where someone else is called in to do that QA function on your product?
Please apply your document to your own bounty and see if it works. ;)
During the Construction process, the customer and i discuss what is required, in this case a set of rules for bounties, i got a feel for what was required and wrote in that spirit. As i handed in draft, the customer would point out what they felt was wrong and also add or subtract some parts until it was complete. There is nowhere a QA person can fit in because the quality is produced by the efforts of the customer and producer through communication. By wrapping things up in this case was in your hands as it had been quite a while since i had got feedback from the customer. If you look at the document, you'll note it's emphasis on communication, there is no need for a checklist because the customers needs published or not are worked on with their input, the very idea of checklists creates room for shoddy work. If you look through the revision history, you'll see that not only was i using the customer's ideas, but I integrated my own, the Ethics portion for example.
The moment you encourage outside QA especially by competitors you open up a can of worms.
1) Competitor may just keep pointing out issues that have nothing to do with the bounty, but because it is an issue the customer will want it fixed. for example, i have completed this bounty https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1986.0 (I am waiting on you guys on that one as well). We have all heard about the issue on Mac with the client, a competitor could point that out and affect the outcome. Is it part of the Bounty?, no! The customer would then want that fixed too still.
2) I wrote the SCSL, if you brought in QA person and they communicated with me, what is there to stop us from agrreing to share the funds if we tell you it's perfect? The customer must be the one to assess the product, and if they require assiatance in testing they can ask for outside help, that is not in anyway partaking in the bounty.
The document I have been reviewing seems like a good start on a spec for what we were hoping for.
The rules are there but they don't seem to be self-enforcing.
The art of game theory is to engineer the right outcome by constructing the incentives in such a way that people do the right thing naturally in their own self interest without requiring an outside party to have to enforce the rules. Enforcement by an outside force always leads to conflict and hard feelings - what we are hoping to avoid.
A simple example: The Quality Assurance function (missing from the current process) might be set up such that the QA person gets a share of the developer's share proportional to the number of bugs found. This incentivizes the developer not to have bugs when the product is submitted to QA. And the buyer knows that the product is probably bug free if a properly incentivized QA person couldn't collect a big payout. But the process still has to reward the QA person for trying, lest they be discouraged by receiving perfect code too often. The best QA person might be a competitor who has plenty of motivation for finding fault. If your competitor can't find a fault, you've got a really great product.
Game theory logic like this is largely missing from the product so far. I like the fact that the document hasn't become bloated, but it seems to put the burden on the customer to determine if all the rules have been followed or not.If we are to maximize the number of bounties available to the community, we can't be refereeing all the internal steps of the process.
For example: "Submissions with bugs may be penalized and may result in complete disqualification." How does the customer know that there are no bugs and are we expecting the customer to do the penalizing instead of the natural processes built into the system? If we have to do that ourselves, we won't have enough time available to sponsor many bounties!In short - the current document does not define a process that is scalable to the number of bounties we hope to offer.
Innovations are needed here. How does this document put in place a system that delivers a quality product that an already overloaded customer can buy with confidence?
I see your point but i think the idea of middlemen will hamper the trust system that is used with Bounties, especially with regard to coding. If i deliver a product and the QA guy fails to see a bug, but it appears later on when the program is in use, I may say that such a bug was not there when I gave it to you and it was introduced later. Whereas the trust system encourages cooperation, see the only Bounty listed as [Paid], me toast and Freetrade did that and were paid. Even before Dan offered to pay, we were still addressing any issues on any board that are related to it.
Bounties shouldn't need enforcement, simply, you ask for something and I work to produce it. I hand in an entry, you check it out and it if does the required task well then I get paid, if there are issues, you point them out and I go back to work on them, kind of like what we are doing now.
You already mention that enforcement by outsiders leads to hard feelings, isnt a middleman an outsider? Also the inclusion of a middleman open up the possibility of corruption. There are sometimes huge funds involved and that could cause collusion.
I was under the impression that this document was to encourage team work and quality, but if competitors are at each others neck trying to find fault in the other's work, we'll never get anything done.
However, if this is the new direction you wish for i will make it so.
My intention was to show an example of engineering a process so everyone working in their own self-interest wind up naturally producing a desired result. This doesn't necessarily mean that the example is the right way to do it.
But I would like to see how we can get to bytemaster's model of having people produce a product that a customer can just buy. Apple doesn't expect its customers to participate in the development and QA (although it may use focus groups to refine requirements which is comparable to what we are doing right now.) If they can produce insanely great products for customers that didn't even know they wanted an iPod, how can we replicate that process?
Again, you cite success when bytemaster is deeply involved but that doesn't scale because there is not enough of bytemaster.
How do we define a process that demands less of his time so that we can move the industry forward faster?
(Obviously we could grow Invictus with a whole staff that does that, but that path leads to centralization and the Dark Side.)
Lol, that is true. We once spoke about that with bytemaster, this was his response
I have hired someone (cannot announce until he notifies his existing employer) who's job it will be to turn my high-level needs into detailed bounties and manage it to completion. He will be paid a commission on whether or not a valid submission is made for the bounty (I will be the judge). This should motivate him to set up the bounty rules, spec, etc, in a way that makes it most likely to get a result.
I think that it will require someone working with me on a partial payroll basis to pull this off. That said, I could imagine hiring a few such people who will be bounty managers responsible for delivering the final product. Under the current system, these would be the team leaders who then allocate sub bounties and keep a cut for themselves.
The overall goal as he put it once before was that you guys were looking for talent, which would later be used on a regular basis as part time work force and that bounties bring people out of the wood work while completing tasks quickly.
Quality control should never cause problem with bounty execution, i think he had the right idea hiring someone to handle it even part time. As you have CEO, COO and CFO, you should create a position CDO , chief development officer who handles those issues. It is far more efficient and creates a viable environment. The CDO, frequents the forum and tests current products, noting all complaints by users and noting all suggestions, these are then used to create the bounties.
Also if you guy need specific things done you tell him and he breaks the tasks up and manages the development via bounties. The very idea of having a bounties dedicated person will improve efficiency, communication and quality all at once.
Also the bounty manager could assist third party bounties since it's only a matter of time before they start appearing.
No doubt that is part of the solution. In this case I'm performing that function for one small bounty while trying to do my day job. So I'm sure that our new bounty manger will have about the same amount of time to spend on each of all the rest of the bounties. Since that will always be the limitation to how fast we can grow this industry while staying decentralized, we need to try our best with this bounty to come up with rules and procedures to help the poor guy handle more bounties per second without causing undue friction among the various stakeholders.
Those are the kind of innovations we hope to see when this document reaches its full potential.
Thanks for everyone's efforts in getting us to the point where we can have this conversation. :)
I have lots of spare money (pts), give me something quick, I don't know how to price it but I will give you what I consider what is fair considering the risk you take
PLEASE LET US MOVE ALL CONVERSATION ABOUT REDEFINITION TO THIS THREAD https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1679.0
You are going to make it harder for people to follow the development process for this bounty if you keep posting discussion issues here. I thank you very much for understanding.
I have a few suggestions if you don’t mind.
I have read your document. As I try to follow this thread I think everybody's agreed on fact it is needed to create more competitive yet collaborative environment. It should also support work in own self-interest like in the game theory. So I think your document misses that. It seems to me very soft and fogy. Maybe this is not the right place I put suggestions but please check out and you will get the idea what I meant.
Please forgive for my possible bad translation.
Basic Rules
1. Clarity: Ok
2. Entry: The entry could be submitted as a work of a single or multiple participants in the separate thread called- Book of Entry. The claim for percent dividing should be clearly marked on original entry for a single or multiple participants. Everybody is free (encouraged) to use previous entries or its parts. It is good manner to inform the owner of entry about that fact. Only the owner of original work can request or accept the compensating offer of user. If they agree they pronounce agreement on the Book of Entry. If not the owner of used work pronounce the request for mediation with appropriate evidence in the separate thread called Book of Mediation.
3. Quality Analyzes: Everybody is free (encouraged) to claim for a bug or copyright and other issues for splitting percentage or additional reword. It is good manner to inform the owner of entry about that fact. Only the owner of original work can offer the compensation until the construction is over. If the owner and complaint side agree they pronounce the agreement on Book of Entry. If not the complaint side pronounce the request for mediation with appropriate evidence in the Book of Mediation.
4. Bounties: The bounty will be reworded by a poster after evaluating phase. The poster of bounty reserves the right to reword one or more full entries or its parts. The mediation issues should be solved only for reworded entries and concerned parties informed. If the mediation find issues true they decide about percentage splitting of original bounties among interesting parties or give additional reword to mediation nominator.
5. Actual 4 becomes 5
6. Actual 5 becomes 6
Everybody is welcomed to discuss and/or upgrade my suggestions.
Ok, so should i go ahead and put quality assesment as part of the document or do you agree that it should be a customer who decides on quality? I've outlined and elaborated on my arguments against it, now i just need confirmation from you guys that i should do it or not?
I have a few suggestions if you don’t mind.
I have read your document. As I try to follow this thread I think everybody's agreed on fact it is needed to create more competitive yet collaborative environment. It should also support work in own self-interest like in the game theory. So I think your document misses that. It seems to me very soft and fogy. Maybe this is not the right place I put suggestions but please check out and you will get the idea what I meant.
Please forgive for my possible bad translation.
Basic Rules
1. Clarity: Ok
2. Entry: The entry could be submitted as a work of a single or multiple participants in the separate thread called- Book of Entry. The claim for percent dividing should be clearly marked on original entry for a single or multiple participants. Everybody is free (encouraged) to use previous entries or its parts. It is good manner to inform the owner of entry about that fact. Only the owner of original work can request or accept the compensating offer of user. If they agree they pronounce agreement on the Book of Entry. If not the owner of used work may pronounce the request for mediation with appropriate evidence in the separate thread called Book of Mediation.
3. Quality Analyzes: Everybody is free (encouraged) to claim for a bug or copyright and other issues for splitting percentage or additional reword. It is good manner to inform the owner of entry about that fact. Only the owner of original work can offer the compensation until the construction is over. If the owner and complaint side agree they pronounce the agreement on Book of Entry. If not the complaint side may pronounce the request for mediation with appropriate evidence in the Book of Mediation.
4. Bounties: The bounty will be reworded by a poster after evaluating phase. The poster of bounty reserves the right to reword one or more full entries or its parts. The mediation issues should be solved only for reworded entries and concerned parties informed. If the mediation find issues true they decide about percentage splitting of original bounties among interesting parties or give additional reword to mediation nominator.
5. Actual 4 becomes 5
6. Actual 5 becomes 6
Everybody is welcomed to discuss and/or upgrade my suggestions.
Bounty Procedures:
1) Creation
A bounty is issued with the following details:
• Work required
• Description of expectations
• Reward amount
• Time (if applicable)
• Purpose or Goal
• Completion objectives
• Description of how to submit a claim for the bounty
If you are tasked to write a document you must show that the document meets the stated need.
If you are tasked to write a tutorial, have you demonstrated that several newbies can follow it successfully?
How to prove you have earned the bounty is up to the offeror.
The Construction status is used for Bounties that a poster may have to explain what he needs either due to the complicated nature of the requirements or that he needs a professional to translate his/her needs. During this time applicants offer possible solutions to try and find one that the poster is comfortable with.
The Evaluating status applies to Bounties where the applicants’ entry is tested and reviewed. Bounties with this status have products are being field tested or checked for crowd response. During this period the poster/manager tests whether the product is acceptable. Products like software may contain bugs; as a result they require a testing period.
I have a few suggestions if you don’t mind.
I have read your document. As I try to follow this thread I think everybody's agreed on fact it is needed to create more competitive yet collaborative environment. It should also support work in own self-interest like in the game theory. So I think your document misses that. It seems to me very soft and fogy. Maybe this is not the right place I put suggestions but please check out and you will get the idea what I meant.
Please forgive for my possible bad translation.
Basic Rules
1. Clarity: Ok
2. Entry: The entry could be submitted as a work of a single or multiple participants in the separate thread called- Book of Entry. The claim for percent dividing should be clearly marked on original entry for a single or multiple participants. Everybody is free (encouraged) to use previous entries or its parts. It is good manner to inform the owner of entry about that fact. Only the owner of original work can request or accept the compensating offer of user. If they agree they pronounce agreement on the Book of Entry. If not the owner of used work may pronounce the request for mediation with appropriate evidence in the separate thread called Book of Mediation.
3. Quality Analyzes: Everybody is free (encouraged) to claim for a bug or copyright and other issues for splitting percentage or additional reword. It is good manner to inform the owner of entry about that fact. Only the owner of original work can offer the compensation until the construction is over. If the owner and complaint side agree they pronounce the agreement on Book of Entry. If not the complaint side may pronounce the request for mediation with appropriate evidence in the Book of Mediation.
4. Bounties: The bounty will be reworded by a poster after evaluating phase. The poster of bounty reserves the right to reword one or more full entries or its parts. The mediation issues should be solved only for reworded entries and concerned parties informed. If the mediation find issues true they decide about percentage splitting of original bounties among interesting parties or give additional reword to mediation nominator.
5. Actual 4 becomes 5
6. Actual 5 becomes 6
Everybody is welcomed to discuss and/or upgrade my suggestions.
would you be interested in collaborative work?
more and more bounties are being completed, can we get this document in place now? The structures we are putting forward encourage an orderly business fashion and delays offer us no benefits. Institutions are built on material such as this, it is refined and adjusted to conform to changes in culture in atmosphere. For now the document fits the purpose, it should be adopted and we can have clarity in how we conduct Bounties.
more and more bounties are being completed, can we get this document in place now? The structures we are putting forward encourage an orderly business fashion and delays offer us no benefits. Institutions are built on material such as this, it is refined and adjusted to conform to changes in culture in atmosphere. For now the document fits the purpose, it should be adopted and we can have clarity in how we conduct Bounties.
My apologies for not getting on with this. We've been having all-day off-site meetings of the whole Invictus management team all weekend. GREAT progress is being made, but it keeps us all from doing our normal in-depth interaction with the community. We'll be getting back to our normal duties tomorrow.
Well....game theory. I have been working on this and trying to fit it into the document. There are developments however that create problems..., fact is that by disallowing third parties to post their own bounties, the only customer is III. Now, bytemaster and i crafted the document with default trust to III meaning some parts no longer apply in this scenario. In order to keep the field clean I want to know if you will be maintaining that position. With III being the only customer by default, and III having default trust with regards to payment and assessment, it becomes a moot point to try and structure the document in a mutually beneficial way since all the power is already centralized by III. At best we can put applicants in a work together or fail situation but somehow i think it will introduce the cut-throat competition that bytemaster said should be discouraged at all cost.
Correct me if i am wrong.
Well....game theory. I have been working on this and trying to fit it into the document. There are developments however that create problems..., fact is that by disallowing third parties to post their own bounties, the only customer is III. Now, bytemaster and i crafted the document with default trust to III meaning some parts no longer apply in this scenario. In order to keep the field clean I want to know if you will be maintaining that position. With III being the only customer by default, and III having default trust with regards to payment and assessment, it becomes a moot point to try and structure the document in a mutually beneficial way since all the power is already centralized by III. At best we can put applicants in a work together or fail situation but somehow i think it will introduce the cut-throat competition that bytemaster said should be discouraged at all cost.
Correct me if i am wrong.
You have the right idea here. I will push Stan to follow up on this.
Just read the document, nothing much to add really and I think it's clear for both the organizing and bounty hunter parties.
I find rules for software bounties way too much restrictive, so I can propose addition of the Bounty Poster to decide if following some of steps is really necessary to declare real goal achieved (for example, github submission and platform specific testing).
For example, a top level dev may implement very good algo, but creating all the infrastructure for it (git repo, step by step instructions, etc), as well as teaming with others to fulfil that may easily become boring. He may decide just to dump source tree/workspace archive to dropbox and continue with other tasks, so placing software to github can be accomplished by anyone else.
I personally think that software development (as software design and coding) can be easily separated from open source infrastructure support, so I suggest to think how to prevent converting developers to managers by these rules.
Another issue is a bounty split. Let us imagine situation of developing some software optimizations or solution for complicated cryptography protocol problem. There are people who can come with clear explanation of the concept/idea/optimization approach, but will refuse to code that and will even refuse to apply for bounty, and proposed system with record of work may completely mitigate initial concept contribution while focusing on coding/implementation details, leaving "opportunity opener" out of the process. So there shall be a statement/guideline for bounty poster to specifically take care of such situations.
yvg1900
P.S. This is my personal opinion only, given as a response for personal request for comment from barwizi and to support his efforts in putting these things together.
These are good points.
A bounty hunter might propose splitting the bounty to hand off the parts she doesn't want to do to someone else. This could be done by finding a partner / assistant or negotiating with the bounty originator to partition the task further.
Is this what you meant?
I took a stab at putting the final polish on the document.
I have checked it against all posted requirements and contributions on this thread from all sources and have tried to boil it down to the essentials.
http://invictus-innovations.com/s/Bounty-Rules-and-Regulations.pdf
To aid in understanding the rules and procedures, I've added an up-front section on their underlying motivations.
Let me know what you think and if it is acceptable, then try applying those rules and procedures to closing out this bounty and we'll see if it works.
:)
Ok, now comes the fun part. The team lead must produce an invoice to be submitted to Invictus for payment of the bounty. It must show who contributed what and how much of the bounty each of them should get. Perhaps start with a form like this and then use it to compute everybody's percentage contribution.
(http://static.squarespace.com/static/51fb043ee4b0608e46483caf/t/52d952dce4b06dbaf3b12a00/1389974236168/Bounty%20Worksheet%20(small).png)
The actual ratios and scoring strategy are for you to determine and negotiate with your team except for the final 20% bounty premium. There you should state in what ways, if any, your team has exceeded the minimum viable product and therefore earned some or all of the premium bonus we built into the bounty budget to motivate professional excellence.
Also, under thought contents, be sure to consider what percent of them came from new thinking developed by your team vs. repackaged original and on-going customer inputs.
This is just an example. Feel free to innovate in how you document your invoice. Do this well and it will hopefully serve as an example for all other bounties and will become part of the "How to Do Bounties" package itself.
Thanks
fun part
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxCtiOzdwvPyM05aTUxNaWlkUGs/edit?usp=sharing
Ok, now comes the fun part. The team lead must produce an invoice to be submitted to Invictus for payment of the bounty. It must show who contributed what and how much of the bounty each of them should get. Perhaps start with a form like this and then use it to compute everybody's percentage contribution.
(http://static.squarespace.com/static/51fb043ee4b0608e46483caf/t/52d952dce4b06dbaf3b12a00/1389974236168/Bounty%20Worksheet%20(small).png)
The actual ratios and scoring strategy are for you to determine and negotiate with your team except for the final 20% bounty premium. There you should state in what ways, if any, your team has exceeded the minimum viable product and therefore earned some or all of the premium bonus we built into the bounty budget to motivate professional excellence.
Also, under thought contents, be sure to consider what percent of them came from new thinking developed by your team vs. repackaged original and on-going customer inputs.
This is just an example. Feel free to innovate in how you document your invoice. Do this well and it will hopefully serve as an example for all other bounties and will become part of the "How to Do Bounties" package itself.
Thanks
fun part
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxCtiOzdwvPyM05aTUxNaWlkUGs/edit?usp=sharing
I am not discouraged, i am insulted. You simply repackaged the document, you have not done anything more than 10% of the job, yet you set about writing such insulting documents. And to further the insult you then state you wish to pay 20% for all the work you copied and re-packaged? as if that is not enough you then go on to "praise" my work in other bounties. I work with dual purpose and in good faith, that however is always dependent on how i see you guys operating. This is no good , i'll encourage you to re-visit your position.
If anything other bounty hunters will see that you cannot be trusted to work in good faith, and that will spread to the community. Do not abuse the way the rules are structured, it will be fatal to how bounties are done and it would be a huge blow to the trust factor.
I am not discouraged, i am insulted. You simply repackaged the document, you have not done anything more than 10% of the job, yet you set about writing such insulting documents. And to further the insult you then state you wish to pay 20% for all the work you copied and re-packaged? as if that is not enough you then go on to "praise" my work in other bounties. I work with dual purpose and in good faith, that however is always dependent on how i see you guys operating. This is no good , i'll encourage you to re-visit your position.
If anything other bounty hunters will see that you cannot be trusted to work in good faith, and that will spread to the community. Do not abuse the way the rules are structured, it will be fatal to how bounties are done and it would be a huge blow to the trust factor.
I am not discouraged, i am insulted. You simply repackaged the document, you have not done anything more than 10% of the job, yet you set about writing such insulting documents. And to further the insult you then state you wish to pay 20% for all the work you copied and re-packaged? as if that is not enough you then go on to "praise" my work in other bounties. I work with dual purpose and in good faith, that however is always dependent on how i see you guys operating. This is no good , i'll encourage you to re-visit your position.
If anything other bounty hunters will see that you cannot be trusted to work in good faith, and that will spread to the community. Do not abuse the way the rules are structured, it will be fatal to how bounties are done and it would be a huge blow to the trust factor.
There is no need for hard filings.
The Customer has decided and it is final. Now what to do? You even doesn’t have Mediation panel.
The Bounty Manager and Bounty Prospector was one and Bounty Hunter has no competitior so it didnt need to be batter then it was. So what to do about it?
I think this is valiable expiriance. Now we have opportunity to learn from our mistakes.
This is why this is the single most important documents for the whole community. It is like constitution for the state. If you fail in it you will have future long standing consecquences, which could geopardise the whole community.
Personaly I don’t like the document because of its obvious lacks of mechanisms for achving stated goals. It is more like list of wishes. It even lacks procedures for its change/improvement. This is biggest lack since noone could expect get perfect work at once. But I may be wrong.
So it would be fair to give it chance to prove it self. Lets see how it will serve its purpose. I suggest we use this tread, or open another, to follow its future implementation.
there is a single customer who had default trust. but you are correct, if this bounty is going to be an example, let us see how it will affect others, yes lets keep this thread open.
there is a single customer who had default trust. but you are correct, if this bounty is going to be an example, let us see how it will affect others, yes lets keep this thread open.
This is the whole point of this Document - Trust. I suggest everybody interested check:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igyxxYShXYo
I agree this document and bounty did not produce what we hoped to achieve. The fact that there exists hard feelings is probably an indication that this bounty model is flawed.
Some things that I have noticed:
1) People seem to contribute more real world contributions even when there are no bounties. They see something and fix it.
2) Moving to a tip-based system is probably more productive anyway. If we give out generous tips for contributions then it is clear that no one has any expectations.
3) We want to involve everyone and give everyone a chance but we must do so in a way that doesn't set expectations that may be dashed.
I value the effort barwizi made in this bounty and others. Lets keep moving forward and learn as we go.
there is a single customer who had default trust. but you are correct, if this bounty is going to be an example, let us see how it will affect others, yes lets keep this thread open.
This is the whole point of this Document - Trust. I suggest everybody interested check:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igyxxYShXYo
Great Video! It is exactly the point about moving to a no-contract society which becomes a trust-based society. Things get much more efficient. Attempts at defining these bounty rules demonstrate a lower level of trust and thus efficiency is lost.
Should we be trusted? We try our best to be honorable in everything we do and to be fair and generous. Do we make mistakes? Yes.
just realized the payment for this still has not been made. had forgotten about it.Barwizi... I have paid you the 40 PTS... will you please split it with the other participants according to the plan:
just realized the payment for this still has not been made. had forgotten about it.Barwizi... I have paid you the 40 PTS... will you please split it with the other participants according to the plan:
42c504b8e04df514d85989d4fcec8e227d3973d2eea95fd4f7a7df38b3044a40
Thanks,
Dan