Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[xor]

On Tuesday, August 02, 2016 08:16:15 PM Florent Daigniere wrote:
> This has been started three months ago now... and there hasn't been any
> visible progress (nothing on this mailing list) for the last two.
> What's up?
> 
> It really makes the project look bad.

Ian was too busy to finish it for months, so some weeks ago he asked for help.

Thus I've finished the document for the next stage. Now I am merely waiting 
for Ian's ACK on it before I send it out.
To his defense: I think he was on some trip to another country the last week, 
which is what probably blocked him from ACKing it.

CC to Ian.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[Florent Daigniere]

On Tue, 2016-05-03 at 18:58 +, Ian Clarke wrote:
> I've written a proposal for how we can do this, based on my learnings
> over a
> decade and a half of managing software projects (mostly commercial).
> Feedback from the core team has been positive so-far, with the main
> objection
> being that it may be too elaborate for our needs. I think it can be
> implemented
> easily enough with intelligent use of Google Docs and a little bit of
> elbow
> grease, which I'm ok with providing if others can help.
> https://gist.github.com/sanity/4cf3b1c3484bdb9926d71bc9c4fc0341
> Thoughts?
> Ian.
> Ian Clarke
> Founder, The Freenet Project
> Email: i...@freenetproject.org
> 

This has been started three months ago now... and there hasn't been any
visible progress (nothing on this mailing list) for the last two.
What's up?

It really makes the project look bad.

Florent

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[Matthew Toseland]

On 06/05/16 00:10, x...@freenetproject.org wrote:
> On Friday, May 06, 2016 12:33:12 AM x...@freenetproject.org wrote:
>> At the current exchange rate, it would be 23.6 hours/week.
>> This is the average of what I had delivered during the past few months of
>> work. In other words, the $27500 was chosen from that average as:
>> 23.6 hours/week * 52 weeks * total all-inclusive cost for me per hour.
> In case this wasn't clear enough:
>
> The 23.6 hours/week are not precisely the invoice average, but already 
> adjusted to the current currency exchange rates.
> I.e. my payment per hour would be less due to worse exchange rates, so this 
> is 
> an improvement to Freenet's benefit! :)
>
> (And no, I don't want adjustment so I get the same as before. I shall first 
> finish fixing WoT performance before I wish for any positive change of my 
> payment.)
IMHO it's important for FPI to pay you a fixed rate in your local currency.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[xor]

On Thursday, May 05, 2016 11:51:17 PM Ian Clarke wrote:
> So can I assume that, since the conversation went off on some weird tangent,
> that everyone is comfortable with my proposal?

Sorry, I don't want to block the procedure, was merely trying to help Arne 
with the numbers he didn't have.

I trust you with whatever you folks choose as procedure, I don't want to 
influence it myself anymore.

I'm mostly interested in getting to the point where we discuss the actual 
roadmap, not the procedure itself.
There's lots of code waiting to be written, and I'd be happy if it could flow 
ASAP :)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[Ian Clarke]

So can I assume that, since the conversation went off on some weird tangent,
that everyone is comfortable with my proposal?





On Thu, May 5, 2016 6:35 PM, x...@freenetproject.org wrote:
On Friday, May 06, 2016 01:27:29 AM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:

> Am Freitag, 6. Mai 2016, 00:33:12 schrieb x...@freenetproject.org:

> > You wouldn't have needed to blindguess them manually

>

> It wasn’t blindguessing. It was giving the numbers how Freenet can hire

> peoplel without forcing them to exploit themselves. And I think that was

> needed beyond the curent argument to be done in the open.




Sorry, I did not mean to talk down your expertise in finances!

I was just trying to say that I don't want to waste your time with having to

do estimates about me due to poor information from my side.

I have the precise numbers at hand, so you don't have to spend any time in

calculating my cost.




Anyway, what matters for this discussion is:

With the current funds, Freenet can definitely get 23.6 hours/week from me,

for 52 weeks.___

Devl mailing list

Devl@freenetproject.org

https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl



Ian Clarke
Founder, The Freenet Project
Email: i...@freenetproject.org
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[xor]

On Friday, May 06, 2016 01:27:29 AM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Freitag, 6. Mai 2016, 00:33:12 schrieb x...@freenetproject.org:
> > You wouldn't have needed to blindguess them manually
> 
> It wasn’t blindguessing. It was giving the numbers how Freenet can hire
> peoplel without forcing them to exploit themselves. And I think that was
> needed  beyond the curent argument to be done in the open.

Sorry, I did not mean to talk down your expertise in finances!
I was just trying to say that I don't want to waste your time with having to 
do estimates about me due to poor information from my side.
I have the precise numbers at hand, so you don't have to spend any time in 
calculating my cost.

Anyway, what matters for this discussion is:
With the current funds, Freenet can definitely get 23.6 hours/week from me, 
for 52 weeks.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Arne Babenhauserheide writes:

> xor at freenetproject.org writes:
>
>> On Tuesday, May 03, 2016 10:03:03 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>>> As cost-metric I would suggest using full-time person-weeks. Reasons:
>>> 
>>> - We have money for ~20 of these. That’s a number we can easily handle.
>>> - Cost is very different from salary (by roughly factor 2). Time isn’t.
>>
>> Our funding campaign's target of $27500 was specifically calculated to be as 
>> much as I would cost in total for 1 whole 52-week year, not just 20 weeks.
>> The calculation also included the fact that I've finished my studies 
>> meanwhile 
>> and thus now would have more time for working.
>
> Note the “full-time”.
>
> Your cost estimate is for part-time, or you’re ignoring taxes and such.

I’ll do the full-cost calculation to show why this can only be for
part-time:

Starting point:
http://www.brutto-netto-rechner.info/gehalt/gehaltsrechner-arbeitgeber.php

I’ll use that throughout.

28k$ are 24357€.

With 1700€ per month gross income per month you get a full-cost of
24,378.62€ per year and an effective gross income of 20,400.00€.

But only 1,199.76€ net income per month, or 14,397.10€ per year.

You divide that by the number of productive hours per year¹. For a 40
hour week, that’s 1664 hours.

That gives you a net income of 8.65€ per hour.

Your gross income would be just 12.26€ per hour — the minimum wage
(gross income) in Germany is at 8.50€ per hour.

The standard wage for beginning software developers (no job experience!)
in Germany is about 42k gross², about 25€ per hour, twice as high. The
total cost for the company is about 50k€ per year in wages, which is
1200€ per week.

The net income for software developers without job experience is about
25.5k€ per year,  2123€ per month, 15.30€ per hour.

If you’re self employed, you have to also pay the part normally paid by
the employer, so you must bill using the total cost, not the gross
income.

So now you know how I got my numbers.

Best wishes,
Arne

¹: 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stundenverrechnungssatz#Ermittlung_der_produktiven_Stunden
  (the value is unreferenced, but pretty close to what I calculated)

²: https://www.absolventa.de/jobs/channel/it/thema/einstiegsgehalt-informatiker
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 298 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Arne Babenhauserheide writes:

> x...@freenetproject.org writes:
>
>> On Tuesday, May 03, 2016 10:03:03 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>>> As cost-metric I would suggest using full-time person-weeks. Reasons:
>>> 
>>> - We have money for ~20 of these. That’s a number we can easily handle.
>>> - Cost is very different from salary (by roughly factor 2). Time isn’t.
>>
>> Our funding campaign's target of $27500 was specifically calculated to be as 
>> much as I would cost in total for 1 whole 52-week year, not just 20 weeks.
>> The calculation also included the fact that I've finished my studies 
>> meanwhile 
>> and thus now would have more time for working.
>
> Note the “full-time”.
>
> Your cost estimate is for part-time, or you’re ignoring taxes and such.

I’ll do the full-cost calculation:

Starting point:
http://www.brutto-netto-rechner.info/gehalt/gehaltsrechner-arbeitgeber.php

28k$ are 24357€.

With 1700€ per month gross income per month you get a full-cost of
24,378.62€ per year und u .

With 1,199.76€ net income per month, or 14,397.10€ per year.

You divide that by the number of productive hours per year:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stundenverrechnungssatz#Ermittlung_der_produktiven_Stunden
(the value is unreferenced, but pretty close to what I calculated)

For a 40 hour week, that’s 1664 hours.

That gives you 8.65€ per hour, which is just barely above the german
minimum wage of 8.50€ per hour.

-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[Ian Clarke]

On Wed, May 4, 2016 1:45 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide arne_...@web.de wrote: Ian 
Clarke writes:> Well, one important component of the allocation process is to 
start with an
even

> allocation of points between all tasks,




Did I overlook that in the description?




Yes you did, from my proposal:
For the next stage, every participant gets 1000 units of “value” to allocate
between the different tasks, starting from an equal distribution of units 
between the tasks .
Even if we buy things, we still need time to integrate them. And as an
example why I think that money isn’t useful here: $600 sound like much,

but when we’re thinking about paying people, that’s less than half a

person-week. This is very much not an obvious correlation, though.
I don't agree, I think thinking about people's time in terms of money is the
right way to think about it, and more people should think about it that way.
Otherwise it is too easy to undervalue time. This is why so many companies waste
so much time on pointless meetings involving way too many people.
I even have a friend that created a Chrome extension for Google Calendar that
showed the cost of every meeting scheduled in terms of the hourly costs of those
involved. It's a very useful way to discourage pointless meetings.
People's time is valuable, thinking about it as currency rather than just time
helps to remind people of that, while also providing a common frame of reference
for a variety of tasks.
> However, I


> don't agree that if a task is less than a week's work that we should

> automatically do it, we might have $25k worth of tasks like that!




This is not what I said: I said that if the task is less than a week of

work, it’s too small to merit discussing it. Volunteer time is too

valuable for that.




It is what you said, from your previous email:
If it can be done in less than a week, we should just do it right away instead
of discussing how much time it requires.
> This wasn't just a description of the method, it was an argument in favor of

> using the method, and some background on how I came up with the method.

> A simple description of the method would be much shorter. Good :)We’ll need 
> such a description before we can actually use the method.


I believe I address this in the last sentence of my proposal:

I have further ideas on which online tools we can use to implement this, I’m
thinking Google Docs, but let’s agree on the principles before we get too much
into the mechanism.
Ian.
Ian Clarke
Founder, The Freenet Project
Email: i...@freenetproject.org
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

x...@freenetproject.org writes:

> On Tuesday, May 03, 2016 10:03:03 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>> As cost-metric I would suggest using full-time person-weeks. Reasons:
>> 
>> - We have money for ~20 of these. That’s a number we can easily handle.
>> - Cost is very different from salary (by roughly factor 2). Time isn’t.
>
> Our funding campaign's target of $27500 was specifically calculated to be as 
> much as I would cost in total for 1 whole 52-week year, not just 20 weeks.
> The calculation also included the fact that I've finished my studies 
> meanwhile 
> and thus now would have more time for working.

Note the “full-time”.

Your cost estimate is for part-time, or you’re ignoring taxes and such.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Ian Clarke writes:

> Well, one important component of the allocation process is to start with an 
> even
> allocation of points between all tasks,

Did I overlook that in the description?

> As cost-metric I would suggest using full-time person-weeks.
>
> The problem is that some things we could allocate resources to might be, say,
> paying $600 for 99designs to come up with a new web design (just an
> example).

Even if we buy things, we still need time to integrate them. And as an
example why I think that money isn’t useful here: $600 sound like much,
but when we’re thinking about paying people, that’s less than half a
person-week. This is very much not an obvious correlation, though.

Also the natural units are much too small: When thinking in money, it’s
so seducing to go into $1 steps that you felt the need to include the
notion that we should not go in small increments.

Also we can express money in person-weeks: One person-week is ~$1250.

So this is just as good a measure of everything as money.

> However, I
> don't agree that if a task is less than a week's work that we should
> automatically do it, we might have $25k worth of tasks like that!

This is not what I said: I said that if the task is less than a week of
work, it’s too small to merit discussing it. Volunteer time is too
valuable for that.

> Part of the solution is to have a “catch-all” for small “technical
> debt” tasks,

Sure — not only for technical debt.

> This wasn't just a description of the method, it was an argument in favor of
> using the method, and some background on how I came up with the method.
> A simple description of the method would be much shorter.

Good :)

We’ll need such a description before we can actually use the method.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[xor]

On Wednesday, May 04, 2016 12:40:38 AM x...@freenetproject.org wrote:
> It might also be OK to have this be less than 25% until we have satisfied
> our users with major new features being released.

Nevermind, I am probably wrong with "less than 25%":
I had only thought of the "code quality" part, not of actual real debt such as 
refactoring as a necessary preparation for something else.

Overall, I like your estimate of 25% as a sufficiently conservative value to 
ensure enough headroom for wrongness of the non-"technical debt" estimates. 
They often very well go wrong if existing code quality issues stab us in the 
back.

--
hopstolive  (keyword for Ians spam filter)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[xor]

On Tuesday, May 03, 2016 08:14:18 PM Ian Clarke wrote:
> I agree that we can't be too granular with these tasks, if there are too
> many then people will have trouble allocating intelligently between them.
> However, I don't agree that if a task is less than a week's work that we
> should automatically do it, we might have $25k worth of tasks like that!
> Part of the solution is to have a “catch-all” for small “technical debt”
> tasks, where they might not individually have a user-visible benefit, but
> where the benefit is that they accelerate our development process over
> time, in part by reducing the likelihood of bugs.
> We could then have a fixed resource allocation for these, I've seen people
> use 25% in the past.

You're right with especially the "catch-all" part of continuously improving 
invisible things.

What you called "technical debt" is what I categorized as "Code quality" in 
the WoT bugtracker. This includes things such as unit tests, documentation, 
refactoring. I usually tried to fix a few of those issues in every release, 
even if not immediately needed, to guarantee that the codebase improves.
This also is good for developer morale, satisfies the basic human desire for 
creating order. And it ensures there always is a "Changes for developers" 
section in the changelog, which could possibly attract new developers.

It might also be OK to have this be less than 25% until we have satisfied our 
users with major new features being released.

--
hopstolive  (keyword for Ians spam filter)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[xor]

On Tuesday, May 03, 2016 10:03:03 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> As cost-metric I would suggest using full-time person-weeks. Reasons:
> 
> - We have money for ~20 of these. That’s a number we can easily handle.
> - Cost is very different from salary (by roughly factor 2). Time isn’t.

Our funding campaign's target of $27500 was specifically calculated to be as 
much as I would cost in total for 1 whole 52-week year, not just 20 weeks.
The calculation also included the fact that I've finished my studies meanwhile 
and thus now would have more time for working.

We got $28962 in total, so with regards to me as a potential candidate, you 
can calculate with 1 year indeed. The remaining $ 1462 are a reasonable buffer 
for server costs etc.

Matthew would deserve to cost us more, but he today said on IRC he's not 
available with the current funding level. He sounded like he wants to wait 
until the project has a lot more financial safety to offer. CCing to him so he 
can validate whether I properly summarized his statements.
(I would thus also like to continue fundraising efforts immediately: He'll do 
something else for 1 year, and then do his master's thesis, so we have some 
time to acquire funds for him.)

--
hopstolive  (keyword for Ians spam filter)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[Ian Clarke]

On Tue, May 3, 2016 3:03 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide arne_...@web.de wrote:The 
intro shows values from 1 to 100, the later description uses 1 to

1000.




Oops, fixed.




I do not think 1000 points are useful in terms of limited
volunteer time resources. How about making it 20? This then requires

explicitly *not* putting any value on certain tasks, which is the most

important decision to take here: What do we *not* need to do right now?




Well, one important component of the allocation process is to start with an even
allocation of points between all tasks, which discourages people from just
picking one or two favorite tasks and putting all of their points in those
tasks. Depending on how many tasks we have, 20 points might not be sufficient
for this. But perhaps 100 is a better number, we can decide once we see how many
tasks we get.


As cost-metric I would suggest using full-time person-weeks.

The problem is that some things we could allocate resources to might be, say,
paying $600 for 99designs to come up with a new web design (just an example).
Unless we have a common measure of cost for everything we won't be able to
compare them. Currency is a good lowest-common-denominator, everything else
should be expressible in terms of currency with some reasonable assumptions.
- We have money for ~20 of these. That’s a number we can easily handle.
- Cost is very different from salary (by roughly factor 2). Time isn’t.

- Any feature which looks like it could be implemented in one day is

likely implementable within one week.

- $5000 sounds like a lot. But it’s just 4 full-time person-weeks for

the people who already know about Freenet — others would have to get

into the code first, so the price per feature would be similar.

- There is no task which is worth the time to describe it here which can

be finished in less than a week. If it can be done in less than a

week, we should just do it right away instead of discussing how much

time it requires.




I agree that we can't be too granular with these tasks, if there are too many
then people will have trouble allocating intelligently between them. However, I
don't agree that if a task is less than a week's work that we should
automatically do it, we might have $25k worth of tasks like that!
Part of the solution is to have a “catch-all” for small “technical debt” tasks,
where they might not individually have a user-visible benefit, but where the
benefit is that they accelerate our development process over time, in part by
reducing the likelihood of bugs.
We could then have a fixed resource allocation for these, I've seen people use
25% in the past.


Finally: The text is far too long. A description for the method needs to
fit on a 14pt A5 page.


This wasn't just a description of the method, it was an argument in favor of
using the method, and some background on how I came up with the method.
A simple description of the method would be much shorter.
Ian.
Ian Clarke
Founder, The Freenet Project
Email: i...@freenetproject.org
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Ian Clarke writes:

> I've written a proposal for how we can do this, based on my learnings over a
> decade and a half of managing software projects (mostly commercial).
> Feedback from the core team has been positive so-far, with the main objection
> being that it may be too elaborate for our needs. I think it can be 
> implemented
> easily enough with intelligent use of Google Docs and a little bit of elbow
> grease, which I'm ok with providing if others can help.

Someone has to proxy for the people in Freenet (FMS, Sone, FLIP,
Frost¹).

> https://gist.github.com/sanity/4cf3b1c3484bdb9926d71bc9c4fc0341
> Thoughts?

The intro shows values from 1 to 100, the later description uses 1 to
1000. I do not think 1000 points are useful in terms of limited
volunteer time resources. How about making it 20? This then requires
explicitly *not* putting any value on certain tasks, which is the most
important decision to take here: What do we *not* need to do right now?

As cost-metric I would suggest using full-time person-weeks. Reasons:

- We have money for ~20 of these. That’s a number we can easily handle.
- Cost is very different from salary (by roughly factor 2). Time isn’t.
- Any feature which looks like it could be implemented in one day is
  likely implementable within one week.
- $5000 sounds like a lot. But it’s just 4 full-time person-weeks for
  the people who already know about Freenet — others would have to get
  into the code first, so the price per feature would be similar.
- There is no task which is worth the time to describe it here which can
  be finished in less than a week. If it can be done in less than a
  week, we should just do it right away instead of discussing how much
  time it requires.

Finally: The text is far too long. A description for the method needs to
fit on a 14pt A5 page.

Best wishes,
Arne

¹: Yes, Frost people are part of Freenet, too.
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[Ian Clarke]

On Tue, May 3, 2016 2:14 PM, Michael Grube michael.gr...@gmail.com wrote:

I think it can be implemented
easily enough with intelligent use of Google Docs and a little bit of elbow



grease, which I'm ok with providing if others can help.



https://gist.github.com/sanity/4cf3b1c3484bdb9926d71bc9c4fc0341



Thoughts?



I think it's a good start. I wonder if it would be helpful to define our

categories only by measurable metrics. Subjective categories may be too

easy to spend unnecessary amounts of time and energy on with no final

result.




Maybe, although the top-level categories really don't play much of a role in the
planning process so probably not much point in overthinking them. Each task is
assessed individually, both in terms of value provided, and effort required.
Ian.
-- Ian Clarke Stacks - The AI CFO for your personal finances 
http://trystacks.com/
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[Michael Grube]

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Ian Clarke  wrote:

> I've written a proposal for how we can do this, based on my learnings over
> a
> decade and a half of managing software projects (mostly commercial).
> Feedback from the core team has been positive so-far, with the main
> objection
> being that it may be too elaborate for our needs.


Our needs are varied and hard to estimate. It probably fits.


> I think it can be implemented
> easily enough with intelligent use of Google Docs and a little bit of elbow
> grease, which I'm ok with providing if others can help.
> https://gist.github.com/sanity/4cf3b1c3484bdb9926d71bc9c4fc0341
> Thoughts?
>

I think it's a good start. I wonder if it would be helpful to define our
categories only by measurable metrics. Subjective categories may be too
easy to spend unnecessary amounts of time and energy on with no final
result.


> Ian.
> Ian Clarke
> Founder, The Freenet Project
> Email: i...@freenetproject.org
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl@freenetproject.org
> https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[xor]

I've changed my mind to support this! :)

The 6 months of fundraising difficulties have left me in a state of very very 
high fear that the project may fail.
My anxiety has lifted me into a state of perhaps somehow insane fear that a 
re-discussion of the project's goals could cause a failure as well.
I feared that goals are decided which cause users to lose interest for ever.
I accept that I should instead trust the team to decide good goals.
Sorry.

It's good to see that you have a lot of motivation for the project again!


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

[Ian Clarke]

I've written a proposal for how we can do this, based on my learnings over a
decade and a half of managing software projects (mostly commercial).
Feedback from the core team has been positive so-far, with the main objection
being that it may be too elaborate for our needs. I think it can be implemented
easily enough with intelligent use of Google Docs and a little bit of elbow
grease, which I'm ok with providing if others can help.
https://gist.github.com/sanity/4cf3b1c3484bdb9926d71bc9c4fc0341
Thoughts?
Ian.
Ian Clarke
Founder, The Freenet Project
Email: i...@freenetproject.org
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl