| 21 Aug 2018 |
 @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] Something I've wanted for a while, and I know that @lukebp was working on it, though not sure how far along he is, is the Decred equivalent of https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide. That, imo, would give us that best results for the amount of effort. | 17:51:37 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] Something I've wanted for a while, and I know that @lukebp was working on it, though not sure how far along he is, is the Decred equivalent of https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide. That, imo, would give us that best results for the amount of effort. (edited) | 17:51:44 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] In terms of onboarding and gaining domain knowledge. | 17:52:23 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/lukebp] to be honest, I haven’t really done much. | 18:53:40 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/lukebp] ok, I’m going to get this effort started. It’s something I’ve been meaning to do for a while. Where do you think it belongs @davecgh? dcrdocs? | 18:53:53 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] That's probably the best place, however, let's move this over to #documentation because there is someone working on getting started developer docs using hugo (@nwops) over there that I think it would be useful to collaborate with. | 19:02:43 |
| 22 Aug 2018 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] Proposed process for contractor prequalification. Contractor submits application for prequal to pi. Admin reviews and takes to technical committee for recommendation on approval. Admin updates pi as needed with recommendation. Stakeholders vote on prequalification. | 19:59:47 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] approving corporate contractors generically is a formula for failure | 20:50:28 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] since it always comes down to individual contributors' quality of work | 20:50:41 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] stakeholders should not be voting on qualifying contractors b/c they don't necessarily have the domain knowledge | 20:51:15 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] one of the major pitfalls of nation state governance models is ppl who have zero domain knowledge voting on topics where they have no expertise | 20:51:54 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] anyone with a decent brain can have an opinion regarding how funds are allocated, but not on who is competent to perform work | 20:52:20 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] if the output of a particular contractor is total garbage, that can be made pretty clear to a non-expert | 20:53:09 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] e.g. if everyone in a nation state votes to de-fund their defense/war department, that's one thing, but those same voters have pretty much zero clue as to whether LM, boeing or NG are doing a good or bad job | 20:54:39 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/raedah] If the companies were incentivized to demonstrate to the public the value and efficiency of what they were producing, then the voters could have the opportunity to be informed. Analogy may be better as a share holders as well, since we are talking skin in the game. | 21:01:21 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/ryanzim] Companies trying to convince the public of the quality of their work is gonna be terrible. Think about all the companies/organizations that have run ICOs and convinced vast numbers of people that they can produce a quality product, yet failed to deliver. | 22:04:42 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jz] Yup show us the code. Let your peers judge you and then make a proposal. | 22:06:19 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] the process of having ppl demonstrate their deliverables before we agree to pay for them acts as a good filter | 22:12:39 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] some ppl just aren't that into the project, so they can't get past the idea of doing a few days of work to see if they fit | 22:13:16 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] this is the kind of work that prospective contractors can do in their spare time, if they're interested in testing things out | 22:14:42 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/oregonisaac] I think from a scaling perspective we need to have more focus on the “team bid” some solution. Maybe at a pi level individual contribution that isn’t a full project should be eliminated. One sound byte I recall from a Decred Assembly was the vision of milestone based payments where a project/change would be suggested at a certain funding level and then payment would occur as the proposed milestones/gates were passed. For example if you proposed “payment integration with Wikipedia” you might have a milestones of “written confirmation/letter of intent” at 20% , “successful beta testing of integration code” at 30% and “project completion” at 50% of the project funding. I like the option as it gives contractor groups and companies a familiar bidding option. | 22:15:26 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/oregonisaac] I still like the show up and prove yourself model, but wonder as things grow of the core chain can support that. Maybe it’s an ethos that could be carried into some contract companies. | 22:16:57 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/raedah] I agree that work output really is the final measure. RG is doing some testing here with different recruiting models. On the other hand, bringing work and participation into the community that isnt up to par is a drain on existing resources, so additional pre-filtering still provides value. | 22:17:52 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] one approach is to have corporate contractors offer to pay for the work performed during the vetting process, versus billing for it | 22:18:54 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/lukebp] nice. make them put some skin in the game. | 22:23:27 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] "If the applicant waits at the door for three days without food, shelter or encouragement, then [they] can enter and begin training." | 22:23:46 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/oregonisaac] That would be more consistent with typical business practice. When I ran outsource projects typically a certain amount of funding would be “up front” on projects and that goes towards all those costs...but really you go in the red until you deliver. That’s part of the skin in the game yes. | 22:24:38 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/oregonisaac] At the same time...funding a “training project” or similar could speed scaling. Purchase a golang training manual/tool and substitute the tests for Decred specific ones and pay the experienced devs who help the youngbloods. Even those who “fail” would be better governance participants for it. | 22:28:40 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/raedah] Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! | 22:31:24 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] LOL | 22:31:29 |
