Christopher Barker writes: > Yes, it needs to be funded somehow, but some sort of donation / non > profit / etc funding mechanism would be best -- but I don't think > peer reviewers should be paid. Peer review in academic journals > isn't cash compensated either.
It's been done. The most common scheme is nominal compensation (say USD50 per review) dependent on beating a relatively short deadline (typically 1-3 months). But this is not really the same as academic publishing. It's also not the same as movie and book reviewers who are paid staffers (at least they used to be in the days of paper journals). It has aspects of both. It might work here, although funding and appointment of reviewers are tough issues. > I had to look that up: "Decentralized autonomous organization (DAO)" > > So, yes. Please, no. DAOs are fine when only money is at risk (too risky for me, though). But they're a terrible way to manage a community or its money. Too fragile, too inflexible. The history of DAOs is basically an empirical confirmation of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/ZLBEHQGMFIA5PR26XVDQF4YAVPIOYWY4/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
