I’m envisioning a system in which each feature (maybe task) is peer reviewed by contributors. This peer review process should allow for how much work each person did on the feature, how much value it add(s/ed) to the overall project, and maybe some other things. Showing this community trust in an individual is the best way I know of now to ensure that past performers have the best chances of offering hopefully good future influence on a project.
Having reflected a bit more on my intuitive response and rationalisation of it, I find that I’m partly reacting to what feels like the old stale and broken model of “investors (contributors) as stakeholders” who can acquire control in ways that tends towards bad outcomes. I don’t want to get into yes it will / not it won’t discussions on this because I don’t think we can figure it out. My preferrence is for new models, which is why I’m interested in the OVN approach in the first place, and ones that don’t gradually morph into the forms we’re mostly I think agreed are not serving humanity. I don’t pretend to know what the ideal is, I’m just sharing my reactions and thoughts to proposals here, for a project that is getting its teeth into this area.
I don’t know enough to be very constructive, though I am learning bit by bit. I hope my input is at least understandable!
This is my fault. If you and others can’t see my vision then I’m either not far enough along in it to explain it well enough, or I’ve explained it to some and not to all very well
No fault! @chadrickm I haven’t read everything you’ve written about this. So I’m not putting in enough time to critique the project or your ability to communicate it! I like what you are doing and want to follow, and chip in where I can.
Not necessarily true. Your vision is going to be disliked by some, liked by others. The approval of the masses produces bad, safe, boring products, IMO.
Personally, the more I read this forum, the more I believe that you need competition, you need a little greed. For me, the goal is to build a system where one person can’t be in control of millions.
What I find intriguing about some of these open source projects is how it’s using a little competition to make sure people are moving along, things are getting done, but people are also choosing the level they want to contribute.
I also think that if someone brings necessary capital to a project, they deserve that level of involvement. Which is why I like the shareholder model where the capital is spread among so many people that there isn’t one person expecting to be in control.
I’m also really intrigued by the idea of internal rating systems of people on a project. One thing I worry about is ranking people based on time because time ≠ progress. Lazy people, green people, less talented people are going to take longer to complete the same task. Someone with a textbook next to them, slowly making his way through a task, should be compensated less than someone making massive progress. But then you need something to compensate for sloppiness too. So a peer review system is pretty key. Are there any systems that exist like this already?
