| 18 Aug 2018 |
 @bridge:decred.org | [slack/JKT] Step 1: stakeholders vote to approve a "Decred Trust" group to make these ground level decisions...then these micro decisions can be made efficiently and people can't claim that they are illegitimate. This kinda goes back to the executive function discussion we had a few days ago. I feel like this function is going to get done by someone no matter what, the only question is if trolls can point to what is done and claim it was done without voter approval. (edited) | 03:36:06 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/JKT] This hypothetical Decred Trust group could be the ones to approve contractors, and it would all be legitimate because they were voter approved to have this authority | 03:40:06 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] I think something like this makes a lot of sense. | 03:41:00 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] I'd say that the solution to too many small decisions is that you delegate at some level. That could be by appointing people to run domains/departments, or it could be by simply not voting on many proposals in a domain you don't know about. It's either delegating those decisions to someone you select, or delegating them to the stakeholders who care enough to vote on those proposals. I'm anticipating some people on "fund me to do this kind of work" arrangements who are fairly autonomous, but they're transparent about what they're doing and a successful proposal that contradicts their approach would effectively overrule them because ultimately their position could be terminated by stakeholder vote. | 14:02:25 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] For me voter participation rates on Pi votes is the biggest unknown right now, and ultimately folks appetite to vote on stuff is what will determine the right approach or balance | 14:05:55 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] I still think we should have an initial proposal vote to approve Pi for launch. Partially to get some sort of voting baseline, partially to make sure everyone has ample opportunity to get set up for voting. Also because some sovereignty will be vested in Pi as soon as its live it makes sense that it should itself be approved in some way. I'm planning to post to /r/decred about that next time it gets quiet. | 14:11:51 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] Also, something to keep in mind that uses some of the first votes as baselines is not something that is going to give realistic long-term results. The newness factor is going to artificially boost participation. However, I'm nearly positive that voting on minutiae will lead to complacency and lack of voting in general by considering the plethora of historical data on voting habits. However, I will concede that there are many differences here, as compared to historical systems, which might influence the dynamic. | 18:53:53 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] Also, something to keep in mind that uses some of the first votes as baselines is not something that is going to give realistic long-term results. The newness factor is going to artificially boost participation. However, I'm nearly positive that voting on minutiae will lead to complacency and lack of voting in general by considering the plethora of historical data on voting habits. That said, I will concede that there are many differences here, as compared to historical systems, which might influence the dynamic. (edited) | 18:54:33 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] Yeah I think participation may well dip after some initial exuberance, but I'd say there is still something to be learned about the proportion of voters who are switched on and paying attention at the outset and that will inform decisions like what the quorum requirement should be for different types of proposal. | 20:54:48 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] so for every vote dave doesn't participate in that doubles my influence right? | 21:12:52 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] so for every vote dave doesn't participate in that doubles my influence right? 😀 (edited) | 21:13:41 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] what was the min quorum for a pi proposal? if participation was too low a whale could almost pass a vote on his own. | 21:16:19 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/raedah] One issue I am seeing with the contractor clearance is that the projects are open source and we cant stop people from showing up and contributing code. The awkward situation could be created that because of x criteria or subjective evaluation is applied, an applicant is rejected, while at the same time they are able to show up and produce acceptable code for the project. So one point of clarity would be around if the clearance is for participation in the project, or just for receiving payment. | 21:55:41 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] all code for open source projects occurs via commits to some master branch or similar. there is, in every project, a process of vetting contributions and giving feedback. people can't just show up and jam their code into the repo, there is always a process of evaluation, whether it's by a single dev or a group. this relates primarily to getting paid | 22:42:50 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] if ppl are noobs at doing dev or whatever work, contractors are free to work with them and train them up, if the contractors are interested in doing that. however, it is not reasonable to pay ppl who cannot demonstrate they possess the relevant domain knowledge and can create useful work product | 22:48:06 |
| 19 Aug 2018 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] My understanding of (an idealized version of) how this should work is that as an open source project the repository should accept any contributions that a) implement something that is needed and b) satisfy other criteria like legibility/efficiency of code. The question of whether someone gets paid for that is highly related but distinct, because some contribution may ultimately be useful but only after taking up a lot of time, of both the author and reviewers. If contributors are being paid by the hour, and someone's contributions take 10x longer than others in the same domain, it's not fair to pay them 10x more, especially if their lower-quality work has also cost other contributors' time in extensive reviewing and revising. | 16:39:07 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] I would say this could be considered part of a larger issue of how to reward people _fairly_ for their work. what that means exactly is a harder question but it should have some relationship to the value of their work, although that is admittedly hard to quantify | 16:44:33 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Duckie] I think the current contractors want new people to prove themselfs befor actually getting some tasty DCR. | 19:35:08 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] What makes you say that, @? | 19:56:12 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Duckie] I think they said so earlier but i cant quote it.
| 19:59:21 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] yeah that's the project's philosophy alright | 20:06:18 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] I stumbled on the Decred Recruiting blog post from about a year ago and was reading it just now, it gives a good description: https://blog.decred.org/2017/07/25/Decred-Recruiting/ | 20:07:31 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] I stumbled on the Decred Recruiting blog post from about a year ago and was reading it just now, it gives a good description: https://blog.decred.org/2017/07/25/Decred-Recruiting/ (edited) | 20:07:38 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Duckie] Allthough that might just be a little of the answer you are looking for. I think this project is neverending .
And therefor we need rules for this , but if it comes under the current rules or if new ones has to be made im not sure .
However i realise that DCR is an everlasting development.
| 20:08:43 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Duckie] And thats why governance is so important to me atleast . | 20:10:08 |
| 21 Aug 2018 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/raedah] The system can be designed to function as a means of exclusion or inclusion, but the lever needs to be adjusted per the velocity of expansion being targeted. In a situation of being understaffed, the need is for tools that expose process and allow more in routes for involvement, training. In the case of an excess of applicants, filtering criteria are increased till the desired quantity is reached. | 16:47:15 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/chappjc] There needs to be room for onboarding people with either less experience or less domain knowledge, given a few fundamental qualities that I believe indicate someone with promise: good communication, willingness to learn, and drive. | 17:45:50 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/chappjc] I think this along the lines of what raedah is saying about training. | 17:46:35 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/chappjc] I'm more than happy to invest time in individuals with these qualities. | 17:46:59 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] I can get behind that | 17:49:02 |
