On 6/3/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For my project, don't count on getting paid in the short-term interim.
Where's the money going to come from? Do you expect your project to pay people in the interim? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Yes, I believe there're people capable of producing income-generating stuff in the interim. I can't predict how the project would evolve, but am optimistic.
If the corporation does have an influx of cash (due to an intermediate
success), a consensus of active contributors would have to decide how much to share out and how much to retain as seed money (and I would push real hard for the majority, if not all, of it to be retained as seed money -- unless it were the result of a single or small number of contributors who needed to be rewarded with a substantial chunk). If the corporation has an influx of cash due to an investor or benefactor, it would all be kept as seed money to hire individuals (whose contributions would be recognized at a reduced rate due to their paid status). $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ That's fine with me.
Self-rating (like self-evaluation) is worthless.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Ok I can accept your critique. We can use a combination of self- and peer- rating and a managerial board. But rating-per-idea is just computationally unfeasible with human processors. Maybe we'll periodically have an assessment of the *overall* contribution of each member, say every 3 months.
Complexity does not eliminate transparency. It is merely frequently used
as an excuse for not being transparent. All arrangements will be transparent after being entered into. I'm not pre-defining them because I want flexibility and because, quite frankly, I expect that the best suggestions are going to come from the people who want to enter into the agreements. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you flexibly enter contracts with partners on an individual basis, that's what I call opaque. And that's like a conventional company, with interviews etc that slow down and obfuscate recruitment.
I understand the thought here but what happens when the code has been
heavily modified by multiple individuals (several of whom have put in more work than the original contributor) or when the current code is a fusion of code initially separately contributed by several individuals, modified by several more, fused by yet another, and then modified by several more? Whose code is it? Attribution is a huge problem. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ In that case, the code should be jointly owned by all the contributors you mentioned above. Attribution may be done via a combination of self- and peer- rating and managerial board arbitration.
If someone is going to work on the module's internals to give it a new
capability or improve it's performance then they need to know. Otherwise, all they need to know is the module interface. People obtaining access to multiple modules and not contributing anything back are going to be deemed as not needing to know anything. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If someone has signed an agreement to pay the consortium for things they take from it, then there is no need to put on these red-tape. Anyway, this is trivial.
To implement your "outside project indebtedness" clause, you have to be
able to track idea bleed. I contend that this is simply impossible. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I think if people trust the attribution mechanism, this is well possible.
Hmmm. All I'm doing is restricting detailed, low-level information access
to an intent-to-contribute basis and asking for contribution in return. As I said, if you want to whip through each of the modules in turn and improve them, you'll have access to everything. I'm just actively slowing down the people who are only in it to harvest and run. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ How do you judge "intent-to-contribute"? Seems arbitrary to me. I think the real issue here is your fear of "harvest and run". That's why I propose the "outside projects are indebted to the original project" clause to turn "harvest and run" into "harvest, profit, and be grateful to the originators".
I don't believe that "people" want unfettered access to their work without
a benefit to them. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ That's not "unfettered access". That's protected by the "outside projects should pay originators" clause.
NDAs are very common and fundamentally useless *except* as an
understanding to keep honest people honest. The "honor" contracts do the same thing without the legal intimidation factor (which I've repeatedly seen stop people from joining and contributing to projects that they'd otherwise have joined). $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ You haven't explained what these "honor" contracts mean. I think people don't join projects for various reasons, depending on the details of the contracts, not simply because there's legal language.
I don't understand your concept of a corporate ladder. You seem to have
an innate distrust of organized organizations. I, personally, have far more of a fear of organizations that "trust" people to act in the best interests of all even when there are *very easy* alternatives that are far more lucrative personally. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I do have some dislike for authorities, but I'm trying to suppress that tendency in order to work with others. I don't agree that people can "very easily" harvest and run from my project, since they're legally bound to pay for what they take, and that payment, in the form of shares, won't kill them. All in all, it's a pretty good deal they're entering.
Further, people contributing even to the non-AGI portions should be as
valued as the AGI-contributors since they thereby free the AGIers to work on AGI. It seems to me that it is your scheme that has absolutely no incentive for "mere community-builders". $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Whether something is relevant to AGI, depends on the group's decision. I guess we'd appreciate contributions that indirectly help AGI.
Huh. What isn't transparent? Why isn't a hierarchy based upon wilingness
to contribute a good thing? How are you going to prevent your project from being harvested and dumped? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Transparency: everyone should be able to join the group with minimal hassles; the contracts are not individually variable. "Willingness to contribute" is not well-defined or measurable. More importantly I don't see the merits of a security hierarchy as long as the legal contract reasonably prevents "harvest and dump".
And the implication is that my system will make members feel unhappy and
tortured . . . . OK, Why? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I'm trying to make all aspects of operation very transparent. You haven't clearly explained how yours will operate and seem to introduce arbitrary measures. Things that you call "complexity" that I think reduce efficiency and openness.
Where you're not succeeding is in convincing me that my contribution won't
just be harvested and used somewhere else. You have absolutely no way to enforce trust and integrity that I give a chance in hell of working in the real world. I also don't believe that your system will be successfully meritocratic. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If members sign the contract that "outside projects should pay originators", do you think they're likely to "harvest and dump"? As you put it, smart people figure out how to make money legally... ;) YKY ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
