200 PTS - Bounty Rules and Procedures Document [Closed]

[barwizi]

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

ok, i'll contact the other two. Thanks

[bytemaster]

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

[barwizi]

just realized the payment for this still has not been made. had forgotten about it.

[barwizi]

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.

 

[barwizi]

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.

Let's leave the matter for now and let time decide, i want to deal with more pressing issues. i've never been one to dwell.

[bytemaster]

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. 

[bytemaster]

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.

[Geneko]

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

[barwizi]

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.

[Geneko]

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.

[Stan]

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.

This is why I took the time to document the evaluation in excruciating detail - tabulating rather precisely what percent of the job you did. No insult was intended, just our duty as fund managers to be honest evaluators.   Your own draft states in several ways "do not be coerced into paying if you are not satisfied."  I encourage the community to review our evaluation and comment on whether it was done fairly. 

Anyone can review it here:   http://invictus-innovations.com/bounty-products


Final product for this bounty may be found here:  http://invictus-innovations.com/s/Bounty-Rules-and-Procedures.pdf

[barwizi]

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.

[Stan]

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

Not so fun part.

One of the unfortunate duties of management is to have to make an unfavorable and unpopular evaluation.   It would be so much easier to say, “Good job!  Here’s your bounty.  Come rejoice with us for we are all winners!”

Alas, that way leads to the Dark Side.  Rewarding work that is not excellent never produces excellent work.  This bounty in particular it is important to set the standard. We have a duty to our supporters and investors to insist on excellent work. Not only was it supposed to document how the bounty system is supposed to operate, it was supposed to set an example for others to follow.  Instead, it will set an example of what is unacceptable.  Perhaps we can all learn from it.

So we decline to accept the offered product.  We wound up having to do the task ourselves and it took far more of our time than if we had just done the task internally in the first place.  This is not to say that no value was received.  The 9 pages of forum discussion were worthwhile and commendable and the rough draft gave us some initial organization of the content, 81% of which wound up repackaging our own original thinking.

We have taken the time to provide detailed feedback explaining the reasons for this assessment.  You can find our written evaluation here:  http://invictus-innovations.com/bounty-products

We would, however, like to acknowledge the hard work and good forum discussion with a tip of 40 PTS to be split proportionally among team members according to the 25/25/50 ratio the supplier has submitted.  Please provide wallet addresses for each of the three payments.

Please do not be discouraged at this result.  You have been doing great work on some of the other bounties.

[phoenix]

fun part

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxCtiOzdwvPyM05aTUxNaWlkUGs/edit?usp=sharing

This looks good to me. The division of work between me and AJ_ was 50-50, so we should each get 25% of the bounty.

[barwizi]

see above link