>> your suggestion is basically a dictatorship by you ;-)

Oh!  I am horribly offended.    :-o

That reaction is basically why I was planning on grabbing a bunch of other 
trustworthy people to serve as joint owners (as previously mentioned).

>> without any clear promise of compensation in future

No honest person can make that promise any better than I have (unless you can 
tell me a better way :-).

>> or even of ability to see the whole system into which their code is 
>> fitting... 

Depends upon what you mean.  They certainly can see whole high level design and 
interface specs for all the modules.  What they can't see is all the code 
unless they're doing an awful lot of contributing.  I'd hardly call that not 
being able to see the whole system (I'd call it not being distracted by 
unnecessary detail :-).  Given that I'm trying to avoid NDA and NCA games, I 
think that this is pretty reasonable.  

Maybe another option would be to also offer the option of allowing someone to 
see everything if they do sign a pretty draconian NDA/NCA.  My intent is merely 
to try to get as many people to participate (and contribute) as possible while 
keeping the aggregate of the contributors vulnerability to a minimum.

>> I don't see how your system is better than just making a standard for-profit 
>> company, and allocating individuals options periodically based on their 
>> contributions.  What's the difference, and what's the advantage? 

Fundamentally, it *IS* just a standard for-profit company with the intention of 
using as high a percentage of intermediate earnings as possible until an AGI is 
created.  The main difference is the final profits are split by the AGI (and 
that I specified a lot of what would be in the corporate by-laws).  The main 
advantage is that we don't have to determine who gets what in the meantime.

And, as I said, "The intent of the corporation is to 1) protect the AGI and 2) 
to reward those who created it commensurate with their contributions."  
Everything else pretty much followed from there except that I considered 
allocating individual options periodically as too problematical and unnecessary 
given the final AGI-mediated distribution.

- - - - - 

Does the above make my suggestion any less unpalatable?

What would you do differently?  Obviously, for Novamente, you've made the 
differing choices of requiring NDAs to allow the ability to see all the code 
and clearer promises of present and future compensation (is it a dictatorship, 
though? :-).  What would *YOU* do if you didn't have money and wanted to form a 
volunteer organization?

-----
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

Reply via email to