200 PTS - Bounty Rules and Procedures Document [Closed]

[Stan]

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.

[barwizi]

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.

[barwizi]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxCtiOzdwvPyZ1pPQ1dvU3hFNUE/edit?usp=sharing

some modifications made,

The referral should be left as is else we will state that a referrer gets 5 % of the bounty.

At the end this is game of BP, BO, and BH everybody dealing in its own self interest. I like this part, the ecosystem should be self correcting.

[Geneko]

 6) Encourage referrals of people to the bounties, people who refer winners get a cut --not included as there are OPEN bounties for that already

I think it could be easy solved by Book of Entry. Such event should be submitted there in order to request/accept the referral percentage. The Book of Entry has its “ time stamp like“ string. So if referred party submit the entry it would be after referral has been recorded in Book of Entry, so he can expect the cut.

8)Encourage reinvestment back into the community --how to do so?

Reinvestment back into community is largely dependent of the success of this Bounty Rules and Procedures as well as Social Contract. In my opinion reinvestment back into the community is personal act which is done by exposure of ones gratitude(like famous 1000BTC Roger Ver donation).
It could be enforced only by true success of an individual as well as community as a whole. Although its is build upon" working in its own self interest" principal,over time it would develop many ”of the self gestures“ from gratifying people. It could be only enforced by rumoring such event by community and by that way imposing it as an informal rule.
One more thing. There are people that could be a part of bounty process that doesn't require anything in return for its effort. Those should also be considered  reinvestment back into the community.

14) Ways to organize team bounties where a 'project manager' can organize many others to help build a larger deliverable. --should we not leave this part since we cannot dictate how a team decides to come together?

I agree on that one. More so I believe this has to be done by market forces only.
Suppose someone is after bounty lets call him Bounty Hunter. Bounty Hunter could be project manager hired by investor , or entrepreneur with own resources. He should be acting like stock trader. He should manage the risks and rip the reword. He should study the market and develop skills needed for wining. He would search for ideas, connecting the unconnected , organizing teams, investing money and other available resources in order to win the bounty markets. Over time we hope, thru process of natural selection, it would rise a group of skilled managers that could serve the community needs.
So the entry should be only considered as a whole.The whole entry should provide information about percentage splinting.If it is individual effort then 100%. If it is team effort then according to agreed percentage splitting. Let the market organize the teams. 
   
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.

My thought on this is that bounty operator/organizer should be highly influential person. It has to own gained trust from community and yet be influenced by same principals of natural selection like Bounty Hunters. 
-He should be responsible for making check lists (like you have done so) and care about question/answer/evaluation cycles.
-He should be responsible for employment of all the Bounty rules and Procedures. He should bread the essence of Social Contract.
-He should be responsible for fast delivery. He should done this by proactive serve rather then sit an wait for participants.
-He should divide up and manage the tasks of running the bounty.

So who could most benefit from best BO( Bounty Operator). In my opinion it is BP (Bounty Prospector).
If the BP wants fast delivery, high quality solution he must provide BO that would best serve the roll. The reputation and proactive work of BO would attract best BH and would best serve the Community. After all,it is his reputation at stake. So Bo is in position of some kind of escrow and charges for its services. Eventually BO will recognize its value in the market and charge the BP for its services according to it .Some would charge less some more. So at the end, market and community will decide about BO commission fee. At the end this is game of BP, BO, and BH everybody dealing in its own self interest.
So related to above manner  I suggest only one sentence:
Bounty Prospector will nominate the Bounty Operator. The agreement between BO and BP should be announced in public ( Book of Entry for example) and has to contain minimum commission fee information.

Hope this could help. I would appreciate some feedback.

[barwizi]

The basic requirements of the document are

1) Encourage Collaboration Competition rather than Cut-Throat Competition ---check
2) Reward speed by offering advantage to 'first to market' --check
3) Prevent theft of work by building on others without their compensation --check
4) Unambiguous allocation and division of bounties --check
5) Handle rules for different types of deliverables (code, writing, graphics, videos, etc) --check
6) Encourage referrals of people to the bounties, people who refer winners get a cut --not included as there are OPEN bounties for that already
7) Perhaps a time window after submission during which competitors may make a submission --check
Encourage reinvestment back into the community --how to do so?
9) Encourage post-bounty support of products --check
10) Discourage submission of half-baked code with bugs and coding violations --check
11) Dispute resolution process --check
12) Process states PENDING, ACTIVE, EVALUATING, CLOSED --check
13) Bounties to help in the evaluation phase... ie: finding bugs, coding violations, security holes --check
14) Ways to organize team bounties where a 'project manager' can organize many others to help build a larger deliverable. --should we not leave this part since we cannot dictate how a team decides to come together?
15) Bounties double as marketing / giveaways and thus should be priced to entice heavy competition and multiple bids rather than attempt to get a deal for minimal effort or expense.  -- that's not really rules and procedure, more like description
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.
17) Voting systems are a big negative, we strongly prefer solutions that do not involve voting of any type.

I'd like to find a way to put 16 into the document

[Geneko]

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?

Yes, please tell me how could I be of any assistance.

[barwizi]

I'll be looking forward to your work.

I agree that it is a good idea for a developer to prove they have met the requirements and quality needs, but this would mean that the poster would have to outline ALL the requirements at the beginning. Software is a bit complex and some ideas come along the way or even after you have submitted an entry, leaving that part open is mechanism that allows flexibility on the part of how to meet said requirements. With be-spoke requests (note i call them requests beacuse bounties are not limited to software) it is best to state the basic requirements but not in such a manner that people will just meet those requirements and say the job is done. There are bounties for which attempting to use rigid reasoning will result in submissions that are a far cry from what is expected. Creativity is part of the reason Bounties exist, it allows an applicant to explore what they can do while meeting the requirements. The Construction phase is all about setting the requirements including the quality. Perhaps if i explain the document and how it meets these points (or tries to).

Note the following:-

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

The description of expectations, purpose and completion objectives already state the requirements and give the level of quality expected. This is done in an open and non-restrictive manner that allows flexibility, applicants can meet those requirements and add more, if a poster wanted a generic thing, you'd just go raid google or github. Bounties are a personal request for specific tasks, as a result they require personal input, trying to divorce the personal aspect from these jobs will result in either extremely long periods to get things done or else mediocre work because people will cease to be creative and aim just to meet the requirements. For example this very bounty, if I wasn't so vested in Bounties and willing to create a productive enviroment i would just go along with everything thrown on my desk just to get the payment. Flexibility is one of the core things included in the document, and should remain so because if we use rigid frameworks, we'll conflict because i will prove completion of a job but it won't be making you a happy customer.

The diagram included in the document shows how at any and every stage flexibility of the requirements and communication produce the best results.

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.

This conversation is proof that the rules and procedures I  have laid out with bytemaster are effective protocol in the execution of bounties, as i work to meet your requirements but converse with you hashing out some details.

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.

Here the requirements from the creation stage are tried and tested along with the quality.

As for adoption it seems to me that every thread shows evidence that the rules and procedures i have set out have been adopted with no complaints from the applicants. Each and every active thread seems to be following the procedures I have set out, unless I've missed something.

I do not believe that the document is meant to be influential or effective, I think it is more a protocol that Posters and applicants follow to ensure satisfaction on both ends. 

I submit that I have (with help) produced a clear and concise guide on the general rules and procedures a Bounty must go through, this is not contractual. All bounties have unique properties and requirements decided on by the poster, to attempt to remove this generalization would mean we would have to include every possible situation for a bounty and anticipate every poster's requirements, this applies not only to III but to all future users of this document. Such action would be futile and lead to a overly large document which will discourage users from reading it.

[barwizi]

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?

[Stan]

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?

The customer ultimately decides on quality, but that doesn't eliminate the need for the developer to prove to the customer that he/she has met all the stated requirements, including quality control.  How this is done may be up to each bounty hunter, but it is still their duty and it's in their best interest to do so, lest the customer miss recognizing how good the product really is. 

We never, ever wanted to leave it to a busy customer to connect the dots on the work we had done on an aerospace project of any size.  That's a good way to lose a follow-on contract (or a bounty) you deserved to win.

If you are tasked to build a missile you must prove it can hit its target.  If you are tasked to build a race car, you must document its speed and reliability by showing test results and analyses.  If you are writing software you must show evidence of passing unit tests and perhaps successful third-party integration.

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.

For this bounty, it might be showing evidence that you have obtained buy-in from other bounty hunters.  They are your ultimate customer and your product is useless if they don't understand, support, and use it.  I would expect that for 200 PTS you would have posted or PMed your best effort onto many of the other bounty threads and asked for their feedback - perhaps offering a small share in your bounty if they help you win in some significant way or perhaps reminding them that they should speak now or forever live with what you have produced.  Rave reviews or quiet adoption could be submitted as evidence that you have met their needs.  Howls of protest would send you back to the drawing board and ultimately yield a product that will be accepted.

Quiet adoption must be made observable somehow.  If the document calls for certain processes to be implemented or reports to be submitted or whatever, and we see that happen, that would be evidence of community buy-in.

So would showing how you have incorporated their feedback to improve the process.

Can you convince the forum that your approach meets the stated need?

Can you generalize what you do to win your own bounty into acceptable rules or suggestions that all bounty hunters can use?

Right now the document contains lots of good advice which might be read and immediately forgotten.  How do we turn it into something like a series of verifiable gates that everyone must pass to collect their bounties? 

How do we make it influential and effective?

I will begin doing that job for you tonight, putting everything bytemaster said into a spreadsheet with notes about how well I believe each stated desirement has been achieved.  But I don't want to have to do this for every bounty hunter, or the turn-around time will become unacceptable and we'll all walk away disappointed.

Perhaps you can critique what I do and generalize it to something we should expect from every offeror when they come to claim their bounties.

[bytemaster]

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.

Good feedback.   This document is very important and I appreciate the hard work everyone is putting into it.

[Geneko]

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. 

[barwizi]

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?

[wasthatawolf]

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.

Moved

[barwizi]

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.

[barwizi]

I would not know about wasted effort, have you taken part in any bounties? If so please provide links, perhaps i'll run into these wasted efforts then we can start agreeing.


Developers submit a proposal with some proof of ability to complete the task

That is pointless, why would i jump on a web dev bounty when i know nothing about it? It would become obvious when i fail to produce anyway. And the only way to prove you qualification is to produce relevant links or paperwork, which i iterate again, people like their privacy. The very nature of decentralization is privacy, the whole point becomes moot if i have to prove anything to anyone. All that is required is the submission of a product that meets the customers requirement and fits the quality spec. The development process is public so it's clear that the applicant is the one doing the work.

Project cost is not defined upfront, it is submitted as part of the proposal -> best value

The thing i feel you are not really appreciating is the difference between BOUNTY and TENDER. What you are suggesting is no different from the bidding system that was suggested earlier in this thread. The thing that is making people interested is not some noble cause to help the community, it's the price tag, and as a result they strive to produce products that meet the customer's expectations.

Try it and see what a bidding war will produce, cutthroat competiton and work that will either never be completed or simply will not be supported by the dev after completion. And what you are suggesting amounts to contracts which is something we are working pretty hard to avoid around here.

Once a proposal is chosen by the community

Ok, i have a personal Bounty, what does the community have to do with that? The rules and procedures are just that, rules and procedures applicable to bounties. Be they III or individual or other DACs.

III did not create bounties, we are simply defining the procedure in print.

paid incrementally as work is completed Please just read what i have told you to read, it gets boring to keep repeating that. it's right there stickied on the subforum.

Also, I don't think the bounty system is all bad and I think it can/does work great for smaller, specific tasks.  I just don't think it has been working that great for the larger more complex ones.

Please tell me what you understand by the words "to be defined" and "construction"