I would say do it for all dev's not just core dev's... since we are in the dev cycle its important for all devs to stay and even bring more in if possible.. doing this will push away other dev's like us as we would feel less important. Any new devs will also see this and say meh forget it... im not in the "in" club.

Quote from: callmeluc on January 03, 2015, 08:20:37 PM

Quote from: barwizi on January 03, 2015, 07:53:57 PM
just keep in mind how difficult it is to find AND KEEP core developers.

just keep in mind how difficult it is to find confidence AND KEEP believing in DPOS for the market, keep in mind how easy shareholders walk away and never come back again.
It's the holder to decide instead of employees, right? When we discussed what a DAC means, and Why is Bitshares better than Bitcoin, we said so.
Sorry to say that but we don't need a king, and we don't want to play the game of throne either. If somebody can decide who's on that list, what we need dpos for?
Leave all this to the system itself please.

@callmeluc you're right on target. Just poll the shareholders once a month or somethin. The code will decide which devs have contributed the most and those are the top (say, 10?) Devs who will appear in the poll that month. Shareholders can, not must, pick their dev choice of the month (in the client software). How do we track who's contributed the most.. i don't know, but i do know that we don't need a king to decide who is up for votes. We already have a system like that.

Quote from: alphaBar on January 25, 2015, 04:28:10 AM

Quote from: Stan on January 04, 2015, 12:37:01 AM
We need to be a little patient with this model.

Many devs prefer technical complexity to social complexity.
Asking them to participate in a continuous job interview is asking a lot.

I expect that those of us who enjoy interacting with people are going to have to pitch in and help them out a bit here.  Bytemaster has told us who he would like to have on his team.  He is very, very, very picky.

If we want BitShares to succeed, we won't ask alpha-geeks to perform unnatural acts.

:)

You do realize this is antithetical to the entire premise of being "hired by the blockchain"? In other words you are implying that it is impossible for stake-voters to accurately quantify the value of prospective hirees (because it is an "unnatural act" for devs to effectively market their services to the stakeholders).

No, it just helps define what that has to mean.  If the block chain wants to employ the people it needs, then it must adapt to find a way to employ them.

We are in a phase where each delegate slot funds a part time employee, so to get a team of employees with all the right skills (including the ability to promote their own contributions) you need to have delegates work together to fill in their respective strengths and weaknesses.

Eventually, each delegate will be a small business.  101 teams.  Each team will be a mix of skills, presumably centered around someone who is able to represent that team's capabilities to the stakeholders.

So, until then, you may have to take the word of one trusted delegate about the contributions of several others she is working with.

Quote from: alphaBar on January 25, 2015, 04:28:10 AM

Quote from: Stan on January 04, 2015, 12:37:01 AM
We need to be a little patient with this model.

Many devs prefer technical complexity to social complexity.
Asking them to participate in a continuous job interview is asking a lot.

I expect that those of us who enjoy interacting with people are going to have to pitch in and help them out a bit here.  Bytemaster has told us who he would like to have on his team.  He is very, very, very picky.

If we want BitShares to succeed, we won't ask alpha-geeks to perform unnatural acts.

:)

You do realize this is antithetical to the entire premise of being "hired by the blockchain"? In other words you are implying that it is impossible for stake-voters to accurately quantify the value of prospective hirees (because it is an "unnatural act" for devs to effectively market their services to the stakeholders).

That's the whole point of this discussion: to figure out how to balance the need for core developers to stay funded + keep it open, transparent, democratic, and decentralized. BitShares needs core developers, but we can't be pre-marking anyone's ballots either!  ;)

Quote from: Stan on January 04, 2015, 12:37:01 AM
We need to be a little patient with this model.

Many devs prefer technical complexity to social complexity.
Asking them to participate in a continuous job interview is asking a lot.

I expect that those of us who enjoy interacting with people are going to have to pitch in and help them out a bit here.  Bytemaster has told us who he would like to have on his team.  He is very, very, very picky.

If we want BitShares to succeed, we won't ask alpha-geeks to perform unnatural acts.

:)

You do realize this is antithetical to the entire premise of being "hired by the blockchain"? In other words you are implying that it is impossible for stake-voters to accurately quantify the value of prospective hirees (because it is an "unnatural act" for devs to effectively market their services to the stakeholders).

 

Quote from: fran2k on January 05, 2015, 06:50:29 PM
What would be very interesting is a thread with the official lists of devs so we can vote. If that doesn't exist yet.

+5%

What would be very interesting is a thread with the official lists of devs so we can vote. If that doesn't exist yet.

Quote from: Xeldal on January 03, 2015, 08:08:04 PM
Default should be a clean no vote.

I don't mind a dialog box upon install, a one time option, asking to add core devs individually to my wallet vote, but they should definitely be off by default.

I like this approach ... make it a popup upon first launch .. maybe opt-in some more delegates for the popup too .. some for development, marketing, backbone etc. ... some 100% pay some 3% pay .. just so that the initial votes are non-blank ..

QuoteMany of the core developers are critical to the success of BTS and they are implicitly trusted by everyone who downloads the wallet. 

For this reason I would like to suggest that the next release of the BTS wallet set the "default" approval for the following core developers:

Me, Toast, Nathan, Vikram, Valentine, James, Ben, Dan N., Eric F.

Please list the core developers delegate names here so they can be easily identified

Quote from: lzr1900 on January 04, 2015, 01:07:34 PM
are u drunk? this is a stupid idea.

Oh geez. He made a proposal, the community answered. No reason to take this to high school antics.

Quote from: BTSdac on January 04, 2015, 01:44:14 AM
You cannot set default vote for core developing , but you can
1.set a select choice box let people select delegate slate recommended by developing.
2.the clients include a .txt file as the default voting delegate but the user can choice does not use it

+5%
3. or a description 'Core Developer team' in the Delegate listing, so users know who the better delegates to vote.

Quote from: Riverhead on January 04, 2015, 01:37:45 PM
I've read a lot of this thread and the overwhelming response is negative as expected given the goals of the community. Asked and Answered. This openness to community opinion is fantastic.

Many applications (Office, Dropbox, etc.) come with opening animations or tutorials that briefly describe, in a few slides or few seconds, the main points about the product and how to use it. This is where an effective pitch can be made about the importance of voting to the ecosystem.

You can require voting before the first trades can be initiated. You can let people vote by teams and have "Team Invictus". Every old timer knows what Invictus means and new people probably don't have as many shares. Other teams should be included as well though.

I don't know if you're calling them teams or slates but the point is people need to think of Invictus as a group and be able to vote for all of Invictus with a single click. There should be more robust features as well such as time limited vote selections so that the vote expires after a set period of time has elapsed.

I've read a lot of this thread and the overwhelming response is negative as expected given the goals of the community. Asked and Answered. This openness to community opinion is fantastic.

Many applications (Office, Dropbox, etc.) come with opening animations or tutorials that briefly describe, in a few slides or few seconds, the main points about the product and how to use it. This is where an effective pitch can be made about the importance of voting to the ecosystem.

Quote from: Thom on January 03, 2015, 05:42:14 PM
For now I think it's OK, but not so much in the future. Although you're absolutely correct that trust is implicit since they're the one's creating the wallet, the problem I see with it is the inherent bias or conflict of interest it represents. It weakens the minority shareholder representation by giving advantage to those that already have a strong influence.

Let the shareholders wishes be purely represented.

As I said, it's OK for now, and, as a default (for those who don't vote? what does default mean in this context exactly?) it makes perfect sense.

This is not okay now or ever. It's a bad idea and could destroy the credibility of DPoS. It will make the whole network appear centralized around the core developers in the same way Bitcoin mining appears centralized.

The core developers are important but you have to trust the community above all else to make rational decisions. If core developers start using their influence over the code to try to force the community to vote for them that could be the end of DPoS.

I really hope this question doesn't result in a crash in the BTS price because even the hint that it could occur could create a dumping frenzy.

Quote from: bytemaster on January 03, 2015, 05:30:37 PM
Many of the core developers are critical to the success of BTS and they are implicitly trusted by everyone who downloads the wallet. 

For this reason I would like to suggest that the next release of the BTS wallet set the "default" approval for the following core developers:

Me, Toast, Nathan, Vikram, Valentine, James, Ben, Dan N., Eric F.   

Each of these guys is implicitly trusted and contributing directly to the github source.    This would really help the core team to get and keep the votes necessary without having to worry much about their salary.   Users could always "unvote" them.   

Thoughts?

Bad idea! This corrupts the whole resemblance of democracy which is critical to marketing DPoS!