Jump to content

Recommended Posts

DEVELOPER COMPENSATION

All,

 

We have about 32 million GRC in the foundation wallet and barely spent any, primarily because we created this coin through a community grass roots effort and only spent on highly efficient expenditures.  Such as tiny amounts for marketing ad banners and recently two hangouts.

 

However we now have about 10 developers working on GRC and I would like to show some appreciation by making a reimbursement system for 6 months as a test, to foster an environment for high quality releases that improve the overall Gridcoin experience - the wallet code, the scalability and the user experience.

 

I propose that we compensate everyone at the same rate to start off with - including myself at $30 an hour, for invoices that include productive items.  Another words, if a dev spends 10 hours and produces nothing, the dev should not add it to the invoice.  However if it was research relevant and necessary for the project, add it.  I would like to see invoices for completed work units- for example: 20 hours for refactoring this code that is unit tested, 10 hours for adding this feature that is unit tested etc.

 

The future compensation of our next block of 6 month will hinge on us doing a good job this time around.

 

I propose to handle the invoices and consolidate them and keep them on file, and then compensate the dev for the work.  (If this poll is approved in the wallet).

 

Devs, keep the invoices for two weeks or up to a month at a time, create an excel or notepad containing the hours, description of the item, and amount, and grand total owed to you and forward them to me.

Please forward the invoices to [email protected] via e-mail.

 

 

The poll will be created in the wallet, and this will cover expense requests between August 1 2017 and Jan 31 2018.  At that point we will have to seek a brand new vote to continue this system and will know how successful it is. (If you are currently working on something in July, you can include the expense on the August invoice).

 

Please look for the vote in the wallet, and vote for this to be approved or denied.

 

It will be called Developer Reimbursement 6 month package.

 

Thanks,

Rob

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have cast my vote --of course-- to approve this idea. 

 

I have spent a lot of time in the Slack channel over the last month or so that I've been involved with GridCoin, and these devs are constantly putting in work for this project. It is vital that we compensate them for their efforts. 

Edited by ZenMercenary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in favor of incentivizing development, but I think this is a train wreck waiting to happen. It's impossible to verify hours spent and you're going to end up with people trying to game this system; while the current devs all seem like upstanding guys,  this is begging for con devs to come in, submit trivial pull requests, and then claim stupid numbers of hours spent.

 

I'm very much in favor of a foundation-funded bounty system with set awards for specific goals. This, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, nateonthenet said:

I'm in favor of incentivizing development, but I think this is a train wreck waiting to happen. It's impossible to verify hours spent and you're going to end up with people trying to game this system; while the current devs all seem like upstanding guys,  this is begging for con devs to come in, submit trivial pull requests, and then claim stupid numbers of hours spent.

 

I'm very much in favor of a foundation-funded bounty system with set awards for specific goals. This, not so much.

 

It's my hope that Rob will be a "fair but firm" gatekeeper for these hours. If someone is submitting for 100 hours (for example) for something Rob knows should have only taken about 10 hours of productive time, I would expect that request to be denied and reissued at the proper level. I think it's good that we're doing a 6-month period first as a trial. 

 

Your concerns are legitimate, though. Can't argue that there is potential for fraud. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incentivizing the developers is an important step for the future of GRC because it will keep them on the Gridcoin project for longer than working for free.  Therefore they will become more knowledgeable about the project and better able to generate new ideas and more efficiently produce new code.  Distributing foundation GRC is the perfect choice for the incentivization too because it rewards them with "shares of Gridcoin" just like stock shares in a company, the hope being that these shares will increase in value, and incentivize the developers even more.

 

Random thoughts.

1. Great job at being conservative with the foundation funds!

2. The foundation funds should always be protected from overspending, similar to maintaining the principal in an investment.  Other than accrued interest, does the foundation grow via other means?

3. Can the invoices and dev payments be built into the GRC blockchain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@GridcoinIRC (freshest news) / help with Gridcoin tasks / team challenges: August  / BOINC admin interviews / VOTE in polls / ... / Wanna thank Erkan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, erkan said:

 

If it were a blank check, I would not be voting for it, but as it is, I will be voting for it, as it is something we sorely need.  Thousands of hours have been spent on development for free, I think its time to compensate the devs in some way.  When a developer is actually paid for something, development productivity, quality and speed of us reaching the goal increases.

 

There is a lot of work required to port the neural network and/or upgrade it, and I would rather see foundation funds for this type of expense rather than armchair quarterbacks who want reimbursed for conference calls.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, andrew_wood said:

Incentivizing the developers is an important step for the future of GRC because it will keep them on the Gridcoin project for longer than working for free.  Therefore they will become more knowledgeable about the project and better able to generate new ideas and more efficiently produce new code.  Distributing foundation GRC is the perfect choice for the incentivization too because it rewards them with "shares of Gridcoin" just like stock shares in a company, the hope being that these shares will increase in value, and incentivize the developers even more.

 

Random thoughts.

1. Great job at being conservative with the foundation funds!

2. The foundation funds should always be protected from overspending, similar to maintaining the principal in an investment.  Other than accrued interest, does the foundation grow via other means?

3. Can the invoices and dev payments be built into the GRC blockchain?

 

Hi Andrew,

 

On #2, the foundation does not grow at all other than earning interest on the balance.

 

On #3, if we had masternodes, like Dash has for example, we could tie votes to online polls, and escrows for development to the polls.  In our case, we have unfinished smart contracts that need a REST api interface and the ability to escrow so at this time those are unfinished.  Its too early to consider that feature in this stage of development but I certain would like to finish it someday, then we could have fully operating smart contracts.  If we had those we could link vote outcomes to escrow funds and release the expense payment automatically.

 

Regarding Nates comment, I think it might be possible to make modular milestones and reimburse sort of the way a github issue is entered in the future, but right now we have a lot of random work that really needs done first.  Take a look at all the github issues containing miscellaneous things.  The devs are not sitting around twiddling thumbs, a lot of hours go into for example merging something from bitcoin and re-testing it and finding out it breaks in testnet.  Its too early to expect us to be able to offer simple bounties.  Sorry, but I feel this is still the best way to go.  It is safe, in that I am not going to overapprove hundreds of hours in the first 6 months.  Its just going to be between $2,000 and $12,000 depending on how productive we are (roughly).  The thing is, if it were $12,000, that would mean we would have a huge milestone to show for it, such as c++ neural network and smoother coin operation.  That would be a good thing.  Your not going to see a $20,000 expense with nothing to show for it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am grateful that reimbursing and paying devs is a top priority of GRC.  This demonstrates that development is progressing and that this progression is going to continue.  It also shows that the volunteer work of the community does not go unnoticed and is highly valued.

 

My concerns regarding this proposal stem from the fear of this payment system becoming precedent for future payments:

 

This is a highly centralized proposal.  This means that the random work Rob mentioned that needs to get done can get done quickly.  This also means that work is judged and compensated at the whim of a single entity (as respected and trusted as that entity might be -- this is not directed at Rob, but at the system) instead of by consensus among the greater community.  So long as we do not use Rob's benevolence regarding this payment block to influence the conversation regarding future compensation, I can see myself supporting this proposal in time. 

 

For me to fully support this proposal, I would need to see major community figures express on this thread at least their initial thoughts regarding the issue of payments after this 6 month block along with that of voting weight in general -- my vote and all low volume investors and boincers counts for nothing when compared to that of people who may have been collecting interest simply by running their client once every 6 months (people who mined a bunch, then left the community, but staked their interest twice a year per the POS protocol), and this is unsettling.

 

Thank you Rob for starting this conversation.

And thank you devs for your incredible work.

And thank you community for the insightful discussion.

 

This is how the magic happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) I am a bit unsure if this proposal is feasible, since it would require quite some time to keep track of what is going everywhere and if it  is actual work being done, or not. Never mind weighing in the countless hours some people spend testing new code that might not lead to any direct  improvements, but are needed nonetheless. If I understand the proposal correctly its goal is to transform this current gathering of volunteers into a project.  I am a bit doubtful of this proposal. I know that you regularly look at what is happening on github and therefore have a grasp on most of the things going on. I do not know if you do not publibly interact with ongoing development, because you do not want to interfere, or lack time, or do not agree with the direction the project is being taken, but frankly that is none of my business.
After working in IT project management I noticed two key things: It pays out to have a continuous dialog with the developers to estimate man hours consumed and a central hub to exchange and view ongoing tasks. Github offers some project management capabilities, which are quite  powerful even when just tracking ongoing development efforts. Otherwise taiga.io  also does a prety neat job.  In principle I would like to see a bit more ordered and maybe even incentivized developement process, but if it is going to be done, it should be done properly and with the best tools.


The Charlatan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, here's how I view it: There's a problem ahead of Gridcoin right now, and that problem is that we can't compete with the 800+ other coins if our developers are all working for free or for a small handful of ambiguous bounties. 

 

As Ravon said on the Slack channel, right now he develops for Gridcoin on very little spare time. If this vote were to pass, he would arrange time away from his full-time job and devote that time solely to Gridcoin. Thus, projects that would take him three weeks or more to complete could be done in a day or less. This is important insight from someone actually working on the code-side. 

 

I agree that this is not a very good decentralized option. My perception is that Rob is trying to get these guys paid so we can get some critical work done swiftly. Over the next six months, we can all work together to propose a more decentralized option but in the meantime we can move ahead and get some stuff done that will benefit the Gridcoin project. 

 

That's my two cents (without getting too lengthy). 

Edited by ZenMercenary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So like getting screwed after being told we would be paid for attending let alone speaking on the now bi-weekly mumbles and then a vote passed where votes were /dev/null if they did not meet 20% vote weight and we are at 7.3% as of now or this vote will not pass unless the same requirements are met correct?  IE: get the word out to vote as it seems important votes don't get enough votes so they do not pass. Time is money , and work takes time and needs compensation , but I think $30hr is to high , just like $100usd per task already. Unfortunately what you or I may think is important to work on in the code or " system " someone else may not. How would that be regulated? I think this is going to be a tough subject .So if I go back to working on porting the gridcoin daemon to gnu ppc64 linux I can get paid for it although myself and many others may find it important , even if you do not? ( you = not you personally Rob )

 

That 20% vote weight really sucks , I wont even speak unless its bathroom break for the mumble seeing as its a think tank where ideas get stolen or you get told its a shitty idea and then that person does it themselves and it makes attendance irrelevant.

Some of us are not part of the inner circle #gridcoin clique so we do not get to pay ourselves from the foundation for every thing we do vs crunching.

 

* community funds questions * 

1 - so if the community funds pay for something , is it shared with the community? ie: gridcoin domains? some of these nodes are bare naked ip's and people don't have domains or dns hosting for A and AAAA records and free DNS from afraid.org is not always the answer. 

2 - how about we look with the same effort to setup a payout system based on uptime / connection count / for full nodes? seemed suchflex got that being talked about and all but promised by customminer ( that sometime in the future ) but soon as that competition went away it was a dead subject. Have a main node like node.gridcoin.us as a main seed node and it hands out nodes to the client only nodes and does a whole load balancing and tracking etc vs the current 3 seed nodes in the source code. Can even do like irc networks and the WL greylist idea and have approved full nodes ( certified nodes ) and in essence they handle the level of certificate handed out to client nodes as full or listen only and track as each node has an address and the NN automated it?

3 - how about we either re-vote or get rid of the 20% vote weight rule!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) I stand behind your proposal for this. We need to use the funds for something and making some great progress in development is a very good thing, freeing you from full requirement to do all the coding. However, I think that someone, possibly You, should make a list of task that are needed to do that can be paid for.

 

We shouldn't hand out funds to anyone that sends in a requisition. 

 

Any task that you know needs work, like Neural Network fixes, Beacon deletion system, Torrent distribution of Boinc stats etc. should be typed down and assessed for how much work it would take. If someone wish to do a task that isn't proposed they can bring it up and make a proposal. The key thing is that it needs to be approved by You or someone you entitle trust with that can assess these things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No solution is perfect, but I think what Rob is proposing is far better than we have now. Devs need to be compensated for their efforts, they have done plenty of volunteering already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have asked above already about an upper limit, but got no reply:

  • could you say what the upper limit of the expenses could/would/should be ?

Why not change the vote title to: "developer reimbursement: 32 million GRC" ?

  • We can use that also greatly as MARKETING then

@GridcoinIRC (freshest news) / help with Gridcoin tasks / team challenges: August  / BOINC admin interviews / VOTE in polls / ... / Wanna thank Erkan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Cryptocurrenytalk Logo

 

News, information, and discussions about cryptocurrencies, blockchains, technology, and events. Blockchaintalk is your source for advice on what to mine, technical details, new launch announcements, and advice from trusted members of the community. Cryptocurrencytalk is your source for everything crypto. We love discussing the world of cryptocurrencies.

 

   
×

Important Information

By using CRYPTOCURRENCYTALK.COM, you agree to our Terms of Use.