| 2 Aug 2018 |
 @bridge:decred.org | [slack/lukebp] it seems like corporate contractors should be vetted, but any individual hires that they make is up to them | 14:11:41 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/lukebp] if they make a bad hire and produce bad work, they’re ruining their business | 14:12:51 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] that all makes sense to me, budget and milestones are in line with how I understood the plan. I'm not sure if the idea of clearance is new? It sounds like a good one, I'm just wondering how it fits in on Politeia, whether it is bundled with approval for the whole proposal (i.e. determined by ticket vote) or whether it's a separate process. The Dex for example, assuming the concept is approved by ticket-voters I thought the next step would be some group putting in a proposal for how they'd build it and how much that would cost. Does the idea of clearance come in before that proposal goes for a vote? | 14:13:00 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] @lukebp here's an example - an unknown corp contractor shows up, makes a proposal to complete some project, they hire 100 incompetent ppl and deliver a barely working system | 14:14:00 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] i think this is going to happen if we don't implement a clearance system | 14:14:21 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] would Voters approve a proposal from an unknown contractor with unknown staff? | 14:14:48 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] fair question, but you know this is going to happen. i've also hit the scenario where a corp contractor shows up, bills a ton, then delivers nothing | 14:15:16 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/lukebp] the way I kinda see it playing out is that corporate contractors would have to build up a reputation with the community before the stakeholders would feel comfortable approving any large projects with them | 14:15:23 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] and reputation-wise, i had no reason to doubt this corp's deliverables | 14:15:41 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] I had assumed we were talking about clearance for individuals _or_ groups, not individuals within an "external" group. Not sure what I think of the latter yet | 14:16:18 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] the employee/subcontactor situation has already appeared - ppl hiring either incompetent or marginally competent employees/subs and then billing for it | 14:17:21 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] it could make sense, it would mean "external" contractors being more integrated with other contractors I imagine, which would probably be good | 14:17:32 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/thedecreddigest] i was under the impression it would be payment in arrears? so basically if the work isn’t done then the contractor does not get paid, but they have the ability to dispute that decision. | 14:17:43 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] yeah I think payment in arrears is still the plan | 14:17:59 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] arrears gives some control, but vetting everything delivered is no joke | 14:18:18 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] but I can see how it's undesirable to have an "approved" project bill a lot of costs for a product of marginal quality, the review process for those deliverables would be tricky | 14:18:50 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] if someone delivers crap code, that means someone else has to go through it all and demonstrate that it's crap | 14:18:57 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] what this all comes down to is quality control and preventing overbilling | 14:19:34 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/matheusd] Don't know if this is an intended consequence of that or not but: given a tough enough/personalized enough vetting process, what is the benefit for a given individual to get hired by a company (supposedly going through that companies' hiring/vetting process), *then* going through decred's vetting process instead of contracting directly? | 14:19:56 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/matheusd] What is the company adding to the individual employee in this case, and what is it adding to decred stakeholders? | 14:20:38 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] if corps are serious enough to take some time to get a clearance for the individuals working on the project, they are going to be more aligned with the project | 14:20:38 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] yeah I agree @matheusd this would tend towards individual contractors that engage more with the Decred collective | 14:20:39 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] not everyone can swing the contractor lifestyle, e.g. they need health insurance via an employer | 14:21:08 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/matheusd] I'm not saying this as a point against vetting btw 🙂 | 14:21:09 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] maybe it doesn't affect whether they're located in external companies, but the more important aspect is being more integrated with other people working on Decred | 14:21:39 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] corps are in a better position to not need to convert their dcr to fiat straightaway, so i would expect there are a lot of ppl who would be interested in working as employees of a corp contractor vs individual contractor | 14:22:26 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] here's an example that will be relevant pretty quickly once the proposal system is up - there are a couple corps that are (way too?) keen to work on the dex | 14:23:32 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] how do we prevent the dex code from being junk if we have no visibility into which individuals are completing the work? | 14:24:29 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/matheusd] Presumably, the company needs to bill $CONTRACTOR_RATE+$X, otherwise it's losing money on that contractor. So $X needs to be low enough that the contractor would not be better off collecting it himself, but high enough to account for the companies expenses at employing that contractor. | 14:24:43 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] as any good dev knows, working code != good code | 14:24:45 |
