>> Board members will be nominated and elected by the entire group, and
>> hopefully we can find some academics who have reputation in certain areas of
>> AI, and are not contributors themselves. I tend to think that they will be
>> more judicious than other types of people.
Again, how is that different from selecting "trustworthy owners"?
>> 1. why you think that my scheme will lead to systematically incorrect
>> estimates of contribution values?
I think that it will lead to consistently (but variably) incorrect
estimates (as opposed to systematically incorrect) because I don't see a group
of humans being able to correctly assess the value of a contributions --
particularly before the results are in. Or to put it more simply, I don't see
you as being qualified to judge Ben's code.
>> 2. why you don't see the analogy between a peer-estimated attribution
>> system and a free market, versus a state-command economy and a CEO-directed
>> company?
You keep putting up this strawman of a CEO-directed company. First off,
CEO don't generally direct as thoroughly as you seem to believe. Second, CEOs
certainly don't do every single evaluation by themselves -- normally they don't
even do one so you're trying to draw an analogy with a single point of control
system is nonsense. Finally, I'm not proposing a CEO-directed company so I
don't see why you keep throwing this up.
-----
Let me rephrase it this way -- There is *NO* difference between what you
are proposing for a managerial board and what I'm proposing *except* that you
could have a successful uprising against the managerial board and my set-up
prevents that. For the purposes of day-to-day operations, they are IDENTICAL.
-----
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
