On 6/2/07, Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What you are suggesting, sounds like a mess that would not work...
One problem with your suggestion is that the "assignment of credit"
problem is really really hard. You are trying to solve it via a scheme of
"collective contribution ratings", and I don't think that can work in a
context where the interactions between contributions are so complex, and the
time-scales on which different contributions are helpful vary so widely.
No, it's not exactly "collective contribution rating". It's actually
"self-rating" guarded by peers being able to file complaints. Notice that
this can be very simple and efficient because only *one* person is doing the
rating per idea. With a group of reasonable people it has a high chance of
working.
Also, some ideas may be "derived from" earlier ideas. We can keep track of
that too.
All this does not need to be extremely complex; they're just an
approximation. Even in a traditionally managed company, this
"credit-assignment" can be inaccurate or unfair, sometimes merely due to the
fact that managers are human too and have limited time.
Letting people rate their own ideas would actually increase job
satisfaction, I'd predict...
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
