Author Topic: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer  (Read 8432 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline svk

Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« Reply #60 on: February 23, 2016, 06:17:06 am »
Here's a list of issues handled by this worker to date. Most of these were done by theoretical, other than #251 and the ones related to Windows builds, since BlockTrades has been tied up with other work for most of the period.
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/251
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/514
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/516
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/542
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/549
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/550
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/553
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/555
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/556
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/559
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/562
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/566
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/572
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/586
So is theoretical part of Blocktrades now? Or is the way this worker will function that you pay whoever happens to fix bugs in the repo? Will you pay abit too then?

Seems like a bad deal for us for the $7-8000 a month you're being paid to be honest..
No, Theo's not a part of BlockTrades. As I posted originally,  the pay was for us and for subcontractors such as CNX: I tried to be very open about that. Sometimes it will be us, sometimes CNX, and yes, potentially others as well. BM asked me to help shoulder some of the load of responding to issues in GitHub related to the blockchain as CNX was tied up with confidential transactions and other projects and Theo was basically having to manage everything on his own. That was stressing him out, and I don't blame him.
Sure, but working on graphene is already his job and I assume he's being paid by CNX to do so, so it seems weird to me that you're claiming responsibility for stuff he would have done anyway.

The backlog of issues in the graphene repo is frustratingly long and I was hoping you would add some additional manpower to it because like you say theoretical does need help there. With the kind of worker pay you're asking I think we have a right to expect you to put serious resources into this.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline dannotestein

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 735
    • View Profile
    • BlockTrades International
  • BitShares: btsnow
Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« Reply #61 on: February 23, 2016, 06:38:37 am »
Here's a list of issues handled by this worker to date. Most of these were done by theoretical, other than #251 and the ones related to Windows builds, since BlockTrades has been tied up with other work for most of the period.
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/251
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/514
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/516
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/542
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/549
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/550
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/553
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/555
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/556
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/559
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/562
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/566
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/572
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/586
So is theoretical part of Blocktrades now? Or is the way this worker will function that you pay whoever happens to fix bugs in the repo? Will you pay abit too then?

Seems like a bad deal for us for the $7-8000 a month you're being paid to be honest..
No, Theo's not a part of BlockTrades. As I posted originally,  the pay was for us and for subcontractors such as CNX: I tried to be very open about that. Sometimes it will be us, sometimes CNX, and yes, potentially others as well. BM asked me to help shoulder some of the load of responding to issues in GitHub related to the blockchain as CNX was tied up with confidential transactions and other projects and Theo was basically having to manage everything on his own. That was stressing him out, and I don't blame him.
Sure, but working on graphene is already his job and I assume he's being paid by CNX to do so, so it seems weird to me that you're claiming responsibility for stuff he would have done anyway.

The backlog of issues in the graphene repo is frustratingly long and I was hoping you would add some additional manpower to it because like you say theoretical does need help there. With the kind of worker pay you're asking I think we have a right to expect you to put serious resources into this.
CNX pays Theo, and CNX has to get money from somewhere to pay him.  You can't reasonably expect CNX to commit a programmer and a 1/2 to full time work on BitShares without any compensation (the 1/2 being limited support from other CNX folks such as BM/Valentine/etc). During this pay period, the larger portion will go to CNX and we'll take a much smaller proportion for the work we did. If the total charges from CNX and BT is less than the total paid during a pay period, I'll send it back to the reserve fund. BT didn't do a lot this period because higher priority things came up, but CNX did do a lot of work, so I think the full fee is justified. Next pay period, I hope it works out differently, but I can't say for sure yet.
http://blocktrades.us Fast/Safe/High-Liquidity Crypto Coin Converter

Offline svk

Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« Reply #62 on: February 23, 2016, 09:53:46 am »
Here's a list of issues handled by this worker to date. Most of these were done by theoretical, other than #251 and the ones related to Windows builds, since BlockTrades has been tied up with other work for most of the period.
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/251
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/514
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/516
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/542
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/549
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/550
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/553
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/555
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/556
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/559
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/562
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/566
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/572
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/586
So is theoretical part of Blocktrades now? Or is the way this worker will function that you pay whoever happens to fix bugs in the repo? Will you pay abit too then?

Seems like a bad deal for us for the $7-8000 a month you're being paid to be honest..
No, Theo's not a part of BlockTrades. As I posted originally,  the pay was for us and for subcontractors such as CNX: I tried to be very open about that. Sometimes it will be us, sometimes CNX, and yes, potentially others as well. BM asked me to help shoulder some of the load of responding to issues in GitHub related to the blockchain as CNX was tied up with confidential transactions and other projects and Theo was basically having to manage everything on his own. That was stressing him out, and I don't blame him.
Sure, but working on graphene is already his job and I assume he's being paid by CNX to do so, so it seems weird to me that you're claiming responsibility for stuff he would have done anyway.

The backlog of issues in the graphene repo is frustratingly long and I was hoping you would add some additional manpower to it because like you say theoretical does need help there. With the kind of worker pay you're asking I think we have a right to expect you to put serious resources into this.
CNX pays Theo, and CNX has to get money from somewhere to pay him.  You can't reasonably expect CNX to commit a programmer and a 1/2 to full time work on BitShares without any compensation (the 1/2 being limited support from other CNX folks such as BM/Valentine/etc). During this pay period, the larger portion will go to CNX and we'll take a much smaller proportion for the work we did. If the total charges from CNX and BT is less than the total paid during a pay period, I'll send it back to the reserve fund. BT didn't do a lot this period because higher priority things came up, but CNX did do a lot of work, so I think the full fee is justified. Next pay period, I hope it works out differently, but I can't say for sure yet.

Actually I would totally expect CNX to commit a developer to working on their main product, but apparently you and BM don't see it that way. It's their showpiece and their main product, to not work on it unless they're paid to do so is like Microsoft stopping development on Windows unless someone specifically pays them for it. It's very much in their interest to improve on Graphene, fix outstanding bugs and generally make it the best possible product they can.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3428
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« Reply #63 on: February 23, 2016, 10:18:45 am »
Here's a list of issues handled by this worker to date. Most of these were done by theoretical, other than #251 and the ones related to Windows builds, since BlockTrades has been tied up with other work for most of the period.
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/251
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/514
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/516
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/542
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/549
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/550
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/553
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/555
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/556
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/559
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/562
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/566
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/572
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/586
So is theoretical part of Blocktrades now? Or is the way this worker will function that you pay whoever happens to fix bugs in the repo? Will you pay abit too then?

Seems like a bad deal for us for the $7-8000 a month you're being paid to be honest..
No, Theo's not a part of BlockTrades. As I posted originally,  the pay was for us and for subcontractors such as CNX: I tried to be very open about that. Sometimes it will be us, sometimes CNX, and yes, potentially others as well. BM asked me to help shoulder some of the load of responding to issues in GitHub related to the blockchain as CNX was tied up with confidential transactions and other projects and Theo was basically having to manage everything on his own. That was stressing him out, and I don't blame him.
Sure, but working on graphene is already his job and I assume he's being paid by CNX to do so, so it seems weird to me that you're claiming responsibility for stuff he would have done anyway.

The backlog of issues in the graphene repo is frustratingly long and I was hoping you would add some additional manpower to it because like you say theoretical does need help there. With the kind of worker pay you're asking I think we have a right to expect you to put serious resources into this.
CNX pays Theo, and CNX has to get money from somewhere to pay him.  You can't reasonably expect CNX to commit a programmer and a 1/2 to full time work on BitShares without any compensation (the 1/2 being limited support from other CNX folks such as BM/Valentine/etc). During this pay period, the larger portion will go to CNX and we'll take a much smaller proportion for the work we did. If the total charges from CNX and BT is less than the total paid during a pay period, I'll send it back to the reserve fund. BT didn't do a lot this period because higher priority things came up, but CNX did do a lot of work, so I think the full fee is justified. Next pay period, I hope it works out differently, but I can't say for sure yet.
I don't think it's a good way if you created a worker and then distribute most of payment to CNX, especially when the worker is voted in mainly with CNX's stakes.

By the way, I'm checking the list you posted above. By now, I found that at least IMO 516 is in the scope of STEALTH feature so it should not be paid by this worker.

//Update:
If you just list the issues which have been fixed, and distribute payments to the contributors, you should not do it selectively. Anyone who has worked for the issues should get a cut, the work should not be limited to coding but also contains documentation, analysis, testing and etc.

//Update2:
With the report, can you give us a plan of next items you'll work on, and the priorities of them?

Can you please work on high priority jobs first? I'd rather like to see what progress you've made on the API server spamming issue https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/540 , which is one of the most important reasons why people voted for you. If you've found that you're unable to fix it, please tell us rather sooner than later, so others will probably spend more time/efforts on it.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2016, 10:43:56 am by abit »
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3428
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« Reply #64 on: February 23, 2016, 10:53:03 am »
Theo and I were discussing what kinds of issues we think should be tackled by this worker proposal based on the current github issues, and we came up with these general categories:

- minor bugfixes
- performance issues (websocket spaming is a high priority one, as this can seriously affect mobile web browsers)
- more unit tests (many are pending as issues in github now). Both of the last two network halts could have been potentially averted by more unit tests.
- Code cleanup (poor coding techniques, inconsistent coding methods, naming conventions, etc)
- BlockChain-level documentation
- cli_wallet maintenance (there's several issues related to the current API caching used by the cli wallet)
- minor features
IMO it's best if quoted text can be put into OP.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« Reply #65 on: February 23, 2016, 11:09:44 am »
No, Theo's not a part of BlockTrades. As I posted originally,  the pay was for us and for subcontractors such as CNX: I tried to be very open about that. Sometimes it will be us, sometimes CNX, and yes, potentially others as well.
So basically we are paying CNX to fix their stuff

Quote
BM asked me to help shoulder some of the load of responding to issues in GitHub related to the blockchain as CNX was tied up with confidential transactions and other projects and Theo was basically having to manage everything on his own. That was stressing him out, and I don't blame him.
This means that your team should actively help Theo on fixing and closing issues, not just pay him extra. I assume that Theo, being a CNX's dev, is already paid for his work.

I would like to see you/your team really making commits and fixing issues. This is what the shareholders expect from this worker IMO.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-com

Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« Reply #66 on: February 23, 2016, 01:16:37 pm »

This means that your team should actively help Theo on fixing and closing issues, not just pay him extra. I assume that Theo, being a CNX's dev, is already paid for his work.

I would like to see you/your team really making commits and fixing issues. This is what the shareholders expect from this worker IMO.

This assumption was already negated in previous statements. We are a DAC and our only working manpower is what comes through the Workers.. the expectation of free labourers from CNX is not a reasonable assumption.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2016, 02:26:17 pm by BunkerChain Labs »
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline svk

Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« Reply #67 on: February 23, 2016, 01:23:08 pm »

This means that your team should actively help Theo on fixing and closing issues, not just pay him extra. I assume that Theo, being a CNX's dev, is already paid for his work.

I would like to see you/your team really making commits and fixing issues. This is what the shareholders expect from this worker IMO.

This assumption was already negatived in previous statements. We are a DAC and our only working manpower is what comes through the Workers.. the expectation of free labourers from CNX is not a reasonable assumption.

Negatived? You mean rejected?

Doesn't matter if you guys keep saying CNX shouldn't be expected to work on Graphene "for free", I certainly feel they should as it's in their interest (and I'm even a founding member and stock holder), and I'm pretty sure most people around here also think they should.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline BunkerChainLabs-com

Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« Reply #68 on: February 23, 2016, 02:25:49 pm »

This means that your team should actively help Theo on fixing and closing issues, not just pay him extra. I assume that Theo, being a CNX's dev, is already paid for his work.

I would like to see you/your team really making commits and fixing issues. This is what the shareholders expect from this worker IMO.

This assumption was already negatived in previous statements. We are a DAC and our only working manpower is what comes through the Workers.. the expectation of free labourers from CNX is not a reasonable assumption.

Negatived? You mean rejected?

Doesn't matter if you guys keep saying CNX shouldn't be expected to work on Graphene "for free", I certainly feel they should as it's in their interest (and I'm even a founding member and stock holder), and I'm pretty sure most people around here also think they should.

Sorry I meant negated... just woke up after only a few hrs sleep :)  Corrected.

In regards to free work.. where exactly should the funds come from then for them to work 'for free' if this is the case. I like to understand how their business model for man-hours should be paid then. What are the more ideal solutions that can work better?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline svk

Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« Reply #69 on: February 23, 2016, 02:31:29 pm »

This means that your team should actively help Theo on fixing and closing issues, not just pay him extra. I assume that Theo, being a CNX's dev, is already paid for his work.

I would like to see you/your team really making commits and fixing issues. This is what the shareholders expect from this worker IMO.

This assumption was already negatived in previous statements. We are a DAC and our only working manpower is what comes through the Workers.. the expectation of free labourers from CNX is not a reasonable assumption.

Negatived? You mean rejected?

Doesn't matter if you guys keep saying CNX shouldn't be expected to work on Graphene "for free", I certainly feel they should as it's in their interest (and I'm even a founding member and stock holder), and I'm pretty sure most people around here also think they should.

Sorry I meant negated... just woke up after only a few hrs sleep :)  Corrected.

In regards to free work.. where exactly should the funds come from then for them to work 'for free' if this is the case. I like to understand how their business model for man-hours should be paid then. What are the more ideal solutions that can work better?

I explained why I think they should work on Graphene above. You have to remember this isn't BTS only, it's Graphene, CNX's flagship and currently only product.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline Pheonike

Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« Reply #70 on: February 23, 2016, 02:51:55 pm »
Only product that you are aware off.

Offline dannotestein

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 735
    • View Profile
    • BlockTrades International
  • BitShares: btsnow
Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« Reply #71 on: February 23, 2016, 02:52:08 pm »
To inject some actual numbers into this discussion, for the work reported above, this worker has been paid ~$3250 USD in BTS. Of that, BlockTrades plans to charge $700 for the work we've done (this includes more than just the time we spent on the windows build and issue 251, as we've had to spend time learning and discussing ways to improve the current workflow). Given the work that CNX did during this period, I think it's quite reasonable for them to charge $2550. SVK's feelings aside, I don't think we're likely to see CNX doing development work for free. The best I think we can hope for is that they give us a discounted rate, which I think this represents.

I certainly plan to increase the amount of time we can devote to this worker, but I know our next week is booked with updating our web site for our public offering, so I plan to make no charges during that time for BT. The one exception to that is if we wind up working on this issue: https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/591.

It's been suggested that we should report what issues we plan to work on, but this really isn't a simple thing to do reliably. Priorities of issues rapidly change as well as available people to work on them. It's much easier and more reasonable, IMO, to report what was done and what was charged. I'll evaluate what is done by CNX and us over the next period, then distribute accordingly, including returning funds if less was done than the worker provides for.

However, it is important that programmers know what issues other programmers are working on to avoid work duplication. For programmers, the answer for this is addressed in a new document I wrote recently to describe our updated workflow plans:
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/wiki/Graphene-GitHub-Guidelines

To answer abit's question, we did not have a chance to look at the "mobile spam" issue yet. From preliminary discussions with Theo and BM, we understand the nature of the problem, and the most likely solution will be one of examining the flow of data and coming up with some heuristics to reduce the flow. In other words, there's no simple "clean" solution. We're still planning to address this issue when we have a chance, but if you want to take a crack at it, assign it to yourself. If you can make a significant reduction, report it to us and we can work out some way to pay you for the work.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2016, 02:57:31 pm by dannotestein »
http://blocktrades.us Fast/Safe/High-Liquidity Crypto Coin Converter

Offline BunkerChainLabs-com

Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« Reply #72 on: February 23, 2016, 02:56:48 pm »
Only product that you are aware off.

I was about to say the same. :) ... We have already been told about things like Plasma.. but there are other things they could be working on or focused on now that they are no longer welcome here if the forum remarks are any barometer on that matter. Sad really.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1397
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« Reply #73 on: February 23, 2016, 04:18:12 pm »
To inject some actual numbers into this discussion, for the work reported above, this worker has been paid ~$3250 USD in BTS. Of that, BlockTrades plans to charge $700 for the work we've done [...]. Given the work that CNX did during this period, I think it's quite reasonable for them to charge $2550.

Thanks. I think this kind of information is important, and these numbers look absolutely reasonable to me. It would be nice to see such a breakdown at the end of each month.

I don't think we're likely to see CNX doing development work for free. The best I think we can hope for is that they give us a discounted rate, which I think this represents.

+1

It's been suggested that we should report what issues we plan to work on, but this really isn't a simple thing to do reliably. Priorities of issues rapidly change as well as available people to work on them. It's much easier and more reasonable, IMO, to report what was done and what was charged.

I agree. Setting up and publishing an official schedule and keeping it up to date is unnecessary overhead that I wouldn't want to pay for. Regular reports of work done and how the payment was allocated to different tasks/workers is sufficient.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline Pheonike

Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« Reply #74 on: February 23, 2016, 05:45:08 pm »
Dannotestein
 "We are working on this feature that we listed in our plan"

Users
 "The blockchain is crashing!"

Dannotestein
"I would like to help, but we promised the trolls that would only work on this feature until it's complete"

Users
 "But if you don't change your priority for a moment  the blockchain will stop working"

Dannotestein
 "I would have to make a new plan a get the trolls approval first, should take a least  week because the trolls love to bash"

Users
 "We don't have a week!"

Dannotestein
"I tried to make the plan flexible for these scenarios but If I change priorities for something that is more important and urgent the trolls will vote us out for not sticking to the plan. So the blockchain must die so the trolls can be happy"