Quote from: barwizi on January 18, 2014, 01:10:26 am

have you tried the modifications yet?

Not yet.  In the mean time can you update the production quality of this document to match what Stan produced?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxCtiOzdwvPyX2NfcC1hUzlQeTQ/edit?usp=sharing

Assuming we take a Dual License Approach, how do we know which license each user is operating under?

that is one of the issues i wanted to bring up. Unless it is absolutely necesarry i believe the current approach is best. A single license that stipulates the rights accorded to the two groups is a cleaner and enforceable solution. I've heard of a product having two licenses but it sounds messy,especially considering the stipulations. Perhaps Single Vendor Commercial Open Source option can offer some ideas. i'll ruminate the idea

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. 



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've gone back and forth about this, and I feel I must say this.

All of the code which dga used in his development (of a GPU-enabled ProtoShares miner) is either copyleft or open, with the only exception being his original code itself, which simply claims his copyright. However, the expected terms of use of dga's code have been very clearly expressed in the forum. bytemaster paid a very substantial ProtoShares bounty (1,000!) to dga with the express hope that it would lead to open development of a GPU-enabled ProtoShares miner. dga has himself also expressed his wish for others to openly develop modifications to his work. I do not speak for bytemaster or dga, but I will comment on the nature of their comments: their expressions form a very clear verbal license which states that if you produce derived works from dga's source code, you must make the sources for your derived works available.

It is therefore only right that you should make your sources available, or else stop distributing the resultant binaries. Although my modifications to dga's work are only in a development stage, I have made those source modifications publicly available. But I am the only programmer who has released my modified sources.

Programmers: you should either make your modified sources (from dga's work) available, or else stop distributing the resultant binaries.

Your better option is to release your sources, since it was the expectation to begin with that you do so. Moreover, the community will gladly continue to donate to you from their mining proceeds.

Community: if you have not been liberally sharing some of your proceeds to these programmers, please reconsider. They deserve compensation for their hard work.

Aside: I earlier posted a philosophical rant arguing for Invictus to release their sources to the Public Domain. But now I see how sadly necessary express copyleft can be

 

Ledger system consensus. interesting lol 3k will get immediate attention

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?

Are these things something we should include in Rules and Procedures? Thinking about it makes it seem like operational stuff, great nut not really something to put in a rule book.

I've made some changes again based on input, would like you to weigh in stan.

modifying the top post to reflect the current situation

Quote from: toast on January 15, 2014, 05:47:38 am

Probably a good idea to give one more person access to support tip funds, barwizi is a good candidate. I can just share key for the same address.

Counting up who has done support for how long each day is not going to be scalable, let's try to move towards a system where money is split between a list of reliable staff who get paid consistently and bounties on particularly tough theads

Agreed.   I am giving you a 300 pts per month budget manage salary vs tips how ever gets the job done. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you guys are cool with it. the staff that receive abd distribute the rewards should have a small ledger that they can tally up what has been paid out, maybe a google doc? Helps with keeping records and all staff can add new payouts easily that can be viewed by anyone with the link.