| 2 Aug 2018 |
 @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] the process to date has been that our contractor subdomains informally approve the work of new prospective contractors | 14:25:37 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] in the absence of that process, we are going to see a lot of sharks in the water - most likely people who run junk dev shops, farm out the work to the lowest cost ppl, then pocket the delta between what they bill and what they pay | 14:26:50 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] i've been contacted by no less than 5 of these places | 14:27:07 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] and i don't respond to them b/c they are junk dev shops | 14:27:18 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] per decoy's comment earlier, we've taken the 'see what works, do what works, don't do what doesn't work' approach to date | 14:28:34 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] it's a solid approach 🙂 | 14:29:10 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] right now, we will not accept random corporate contractors pushing for big pay to perform work | 14:30:19 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] e.g. one CN individual/group that requested a USD 75K lump payment for work done to date, despite my having told them numerous times that we need to see individuals performing good work before we agree to that | 14:31:02 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] keeping individual identities and their work product out of the equation is also a less skin-in-the-game approach | 14:32:26 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] I'm pretty sold on the vetting, better for the people who want to work on the project to go through that process and be known as individuals | 14:32:57 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] we could also put this up as a proposal 🙂 | 14:33:13 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] I like that idea, and policies as proposals more generally | 14:33:36 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/matheusd] proposalception 😛 | 14:33:38 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/lukebp] i think you might be overestimating the stakeholders willingness to approve proposals from unknown corporate contractors | 14:33:39 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] it's a big enough decision that it warrants a proper discussion and decision-making process | 14:34:11 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] our dev fund is a kind of lens that we can use to focus people's time and energy. to date, it's been incredibly efficient. i would argue that we could be the most efficient cc project out there | 14:35:37 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/matheusd] I think a proposal to formalize the process would be nice, but maybe not before having a couple of sample runs. Eg: proposal shouldn't be "what is the method of contractor compensation" which I think might be too generic as a starter, but more like "ratify the current contractor compensation model". | 14:36:48 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] i hope lukebp is right about stakeholders not approving unknown corp contractor proposals | 14:37:05 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] if the stakeholders approve a general process for vetting new contributors, _and_ proposals from unknown corps, then we would have a problem! | 14:38:40 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] I'd like a scaling in approach for contractors. Start small and build trust and reputation. | 14:40:36 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] I don't find anonymous corporate contractors appealing, I'd much rather see a steady stream of new individuals joining, not bothered whether they're paid directly or through an intermediary | 14:40:59 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] That's how I understand the vetting as described, scaling is a good word, more about demonstrating quality of work and character than a cv | 14:42:16 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] the clearance process is pretty much what you've described decoy | 14:42:28 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] it's a real pleasure to be able to discuss this stuff with all of you, it's very productive | 14:45:26 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/thedecreddigest] imo it’s important to get the structure of this right at the start so this can be eventually fully automated and decentralised - something that can be improved on in a stepped approach over time. for example, maybe could we have a separate system where individuals can lock up some decred in return for a small reward to decide if work was delivered up to standard. Did company X fulfil proposal ABC? “Yes” or “No”, and “No” goes on to a dispute round for discussion and final/further decision making/request additional work. decision makers who do not fall within the majority decision could be punished by having a small portion of their stake burned, therefore it would be in the interests of the decision maker to make sure they have the necessary skills to make the right decision - only a thought… | 14:49:33 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] the reason i ended up following this path with new contractors getting cleared is that i, and most other ppl in the project, lack the domain knowledge to vet ppl who want to work in subdomain X | 14:53:07 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] so the simplest way to handle this is to have ppl who already work in subdomain X tell me if contractor Y has the chops to deliver quality work | 14:53:52 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/thedecreddigest] yeah i completely agree, e.g. i wouldn’t have a clue when it came to reviewing code, so wouldn’t even attempt to review it. but just thinking of how the process can be automated in line with what you suggested. | 14:54:52 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] existing contractors review some work done by the prospective (sub)contractor, and they would vouch for that individual's clearance in a private pi instance | 14:55:55 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] and that wouldn't involve me at all, which i am obviously quite excited about :fast_parrot: | 14:56:33 |
