On 6/2/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. People post their ideas into some layered set of systems that records
them permanently (a wiki or three is fine for ideas initially as long as it maintains complete histories but code needs to go somewhere better protected). Self-suggested values are nonsense, however, and people have to be aware of the fact that the AGI will eventually do a search for prior art (i.e. they will get some credit for introducing the idea but not as if it were their own invention). People will *eventually* be rewarded either by the AGI (if such occurs) or by a consensus of active contributors (if rewards are necessary before an AGI occurs).
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ How are you going to estimate the worth of contributions *before* we have AGI? I mean, people need to get paid in the interim. Self-rating is easy, simple, and can be corrected by peers if necessary, eg "hey, this idea is actually due to ____".
2. The project will be incorporated. The intent of the corporation is to
1) protect the AGI and 2) to reward those who created it commensurate with their contributions. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Incorporation is fine.
2.1 New ideas/algorithms/code can be submitted under a variety of
arrangements. The more that the arrangement favors the corporation, the more the contributor will be rewarded down the line (or more immediately if the contribution is used in intermediate profit-making projects). The intent here is to negatively influence defection while making it possible for people with extant AGI projects to participate. Note that the corporation will be more than willing to accept contributions from (or exchanges with) other AGI projects and needs to offer good terms to attract such. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ You have not defined these "arrangements" and your scheme, if too complex, would lack transparency.
3. It is nearly impossible to determine the source of *many* ideas;
however, code that is developed from ideas that are clearly developed within the corporation belongs to the corporation (but, obviously, the code counts as a major contribution by the author). All derivatives of the code belong to the corporation. The contributor or anyone else with the corporation can sell the executable of such code at the corporation's profit. Needless to say, however, the corporation will reward that person accordingly and nothing prevents that executable from being embedded in some other product (or AGI project) with a reasonable licensing fee (or other compensation). $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I think contributions should belong to the very people who contributed them, as recorded by the contribution history; and that includes code. They can later take the code and use the code for outside projects, *provided* that they pay for the price of those contributions. Let's call this the "*outside project indebtedness*" clause.
4. Identity verification is mandatory. There will be several levels of
access to the corporation's work/results and access to the source code of the various modules will be granted on a need to know basis (yet another advantage to a good modular design with good interfaces) as determined by the corporations Board of Directors or it's designee(s). $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I'd champion *open access* to the body of work once a member agrees to the terms. How do you determine who "needs" to know something?
4.1 Idea bleed to other extant AGI projects is unavoidable. What we need
to prevent is the harvesting of the corporation's assets for the benefit of another project with no return. As long as an individual/project has contributed sufficiently, access to the source of additional modules will be granted singly as necessary (although it is unclear to me that a single individual is going to be that interested in the low-level source of that many modules -- unless, of course, they're just interested in running through them all and improving the code -- which just makes that person an asset and someone that we want to get vested in the corporation). $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Under the "outside project indebtedness" clause, "idea bleed" can be prevented (and in a mutually beneficial way too). Also, you seem to want too much secrecy, which may turn off people. I *guess* what people want is more openness, even though this consortium cannot be exactly called opensource / free.
4.2 NDAs and NCAs are fundamentally un-enforceable except at the largest
and highest levels. The corporation will have "honor" contracts/agreements, however, and the corporation or the AGI can release information about these (or act upon them regarding eventual compensation) as it sees fit. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I think NCAs should be replaced by the "outside project indebtedness" (OPI) clause. NDAs are very common and should not be a problem, given that people can start outside projects under OPI.
5. The software patent system is fundamentally broken. We need some way
to quickly register any obvious innovations as "prior art" to avoid patent trolls but otherwise steer clear of the patent system (note: this emphatically does not mean stealing other's ideas, however). $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ It seems that your strategy is based on trade secrets instead of patents. In my view patents are not a strategic focus but we'll use them sparingly.
The entire point here is to make it beneficial for an individual and other
projects to contribute to (or make equitable exchanges with) the project while attempting to reduce the probability of theft without recompense. The fundamental problem with Open Source, particularly during development, is that there is more incentive for defection and theft at a well-chosen moment than there is for remaining with a project. Thus, this is not going to be Open Source (though a committed, contributing individual will eventually be able to see all of the source). This is also not a one-vote-per-person democracy. Influence will be commensurate with contribution (and the best way to influence the direction of the project is to put in effort and contributions in that direction) although good suggestions are always welcome (regardless of source) and will always be implemented (with credit to the contributor) if appropriate. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Asking a member to "keep contributing to gain access to the source" sounds like the "corporate ladder". Also, some individuals may be able to contribute at the top level yet suck at the bottom levels.
How's that?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you don't mind, my overall impression is: lack of transparency, too much hierarchy and authoritarian. I hope to create a project where members feel *happy* in it, instead of like a torture chamber. I guess the most difficult part is to convince people that this really is a meritocratic system and that everyone's efforts will be recognized and their ambitions realized. For this we need openness, trust, and integrity. I'm still open to suggestions... 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
