This proposal has been withdrawn.
I’d prefer to have the deliverables spelled out a bit better. Assisting in website migration is difficult to measure and I believe should be spelled out better reducing the risk for Shareholder that you are spending infinite amounts of time on it. Either this work or defining clear deliverables needs to be managed by someone who actually leads the website migration. Giving you an open cheque book to spend hours on without governance is too risky imo.
Maybe just start with what is more defined:
- Update whitepaper to reflect current Nu status and workings
- Update diagram accordingly to the above
When that works well you can start working with e.g. @coingame to breakdown the work which needs to be done to migrate the website and gauge the appetite of the Shareholders to have you delivering it.
Just my thoughts.
1 Like
I agree that the blank check is a hard sell. Maximum hours per week would help. (10 hrs per week would be $1000/month in the long run, for reference.)
Certainly I understand and appreciate the need for governance and review. And the more eyes on documentation, the better.
I’m not at all opposed to having a manager volunteer / by appointed. My initial conception of this had been having review every two weeks, which I didn’t consider being a blank check.
While I understand that concern, just speaking about my services, I’d like to mention that I don’t routinely spend “infinite” amounts of time on the clock generally speaking. In the first couple weeks, I think I perhaps I would have spent a couple hours or so taking an initial glance at the website and find out the current status of the project. I wouldn’t have shown up with 100 hours billed to that and some theymos-forum-style half-cocked reinvention of the wheel.
From past experience freelancing, I’ve often spent about as much time doing background work in preparation, particularly in refining requirements with the client, as I have time “on-the-clock”. I expect similar will be true here. I will accept the definition of any consideration of the website to be out-of-scope for the proposal. I’ll probably spend a bit of time on it anyhow.
I’ll also be spending some time reading through the code. Eventually I expect this will be useful, and it’s necessary of course as a first step in building documentation as I described as my ultimate goal, going from high-level architecture to how it’s done in the code. But inherently that, like much of the work for that project would be, is not well-defined.
So I’m going to have a lot of background work off-the-clock. That’s fine; it’s par for the course.
The governance I proposed for this, perhaps not clearly enough, is exactly the same as I understand it, as that of anything here: a motion. I conceived of each two-week period as a chance to renew or not, and the status report would detail what I’d worked on and what I proposed to work on next. And again, I’m certainly fine with having a dedicated manager additionally. And given these concerns, I’ll be trying to do a very thorough documentation of any hours I put on the clock for any work related to a proposal here.
And working on the white paper certainly was my central idea for the initial two week period. As mentioned above, I’m not confident taking responsibility for updating a diagram necessarily, from the graphic design aspect.
So we’ll cut the scope of hours for the motion proposed here to be only hours relevant for updating the whitepaper.
And I’ll throw this in as well to try to reduce the game theory difficulties here: I’ll do each two-week period up-front with no obligation to the Nu shareholders, although I will ask for a motion endorsing the concept to start. At the end of this two-week period, if the hours presented are considered excessive or the changes proposed to the white-paper incorrect, too poorly written, or otherwise not worthwhile, then the Nu shareholders simply do nothing.
If instead they find it acceptable, they can choose to grant payment for the hours presented and may choose to pass a motion endorsing another two-weeks under the same conditions.
As far as the hours, sure, we’ll put any cap desired. Per the suggestion above, I’ll put it at 10 hours per week to start.
So, to start, perhaps something like this (and again, with any manager(s) added as requested):
===
This is a motion to request that Shaun Gosse, AKA coinaday, do work to update the Nu whitepaper.
This work will be presented to the shareholders at the conclusion of two weeks or 20 hours of work on this project, whichever comes first. They may choose to provide compensation of up to 20 NBT per hour spent on this work, or they may choose not to accept it for any reason, whether or not specified.
4 Likes
This is reasonable.
1 Like
\o/
Well, I think this is ready to go into Voting. Do I update the title on this thread or make a new thread? The motion text has been updated on Daology, I believe all I need to do is just switch that to voting and copy the hash over here, right?
Edit: Oh, right, the manager. Does someone want to volunteer themselves or someone else for that, or do we want to go with general shareholder review as currently written?
Nice security for shareholders and Nu.
1 Like
Aye. I expect and hope the hours and work presented will be similarly acceptable. 
Of course I would consider not accepting the work after it’s presented rather a “nuclear option” and hope that won’t be necessary, but the dream job is worth the gamble on my side.
I tend to be rather conservative in hours billed anyhow. I think this will work out nicely.
Alright, I switched this thread over to voting; still not sure if that’s right or if I should make a new thread. Hash posted above; 7391fb3d1b2a7ba3f1adac2db71cc71e29664801 ; from Daology. Since no managers have volunteered, and since there is no liability to shareholders generated by the current version of this motion, I think the general review when the work is presented and the grant is voted upon will suffice. I can certainly still generate a revised version instead if we have a manager volunteer.
2 Likes
Do we know who will check the documents beforehand or it would be on a volunteer basis afterwards?
For example, personally i don’t have the knowhow to check if a document is accurate or need an update or something else
What might make it easier is to share the incremental updates to the documentations. It would be easier for people to help guide you in the work by presenting small chunks for review than an entire revised document at the end. For instance if you convert the whitepaper to a document and host it on github, then post a new commit when you change a section. Many people people would be able to comment, or even help out in submitting some pull requests to change.
2 Likes
@zoro, I have asked repeatedly in this thread for someone to volunteer themselves or others to manage this and I would add them in. No one stepped forward but I wasn’t hearing any objections to the revised zero liability proposal so I decided to try to start moving forward. I believe that general review will suffice. I think a lot of good documentation is “I know it when I see it” type of stuff.
It’s an update to the whitepaper. If we ask very nicely, perhaps when we’re all done looking at it, @JordanLee can skim through and make sure the changes seem sane as the ultimate check, but given that a significant portion of the work is going to involve collecting and verifying information on whatever changes have been made, to some extent reading through the threads should allow any interested person to be able to see where the information is coming from and verify it with change histories and so forth.
@CoinGame, the report at the end is not intended to be in lieu of communicating with people. I know everyone is terrified I’m going to go off into a corner by myself and magically get a lot of worthless hours in. I’m going to be asking questions here to get started on style and substance of the update, including one I’ve already thought of: do we want to keep the original white paper content and revised information largely separate, with updates after, or do we want to create basically a “Whitepaper 2.0” document to describe the system as if it were created new today?
That is, is the whitepaper intended to convey the history of how we got to the updates as well, or is the scope limited to a technical description of the current system?
I’ll have a thread for everyone to put major points which need to be included in the update as well, etc.
Github for the whitepaper is an excellent idea as well. I’ll make a repo for it at some point relatively soon after the motion passes and I start doing on-the-clock work with this.
Of course, the first couple hours I put in will likely be largely reading and initial revision notes and such. And in order to avoid distraction and over-head, I’m not going to go to the extreme of live-tweeting my work or similar.
But I’m not going to keep you guys in the dark. The information comes from you guys and the re-write goes to you guys.
By the way, did the site go down for a bit for anyone else like an hour ago? I was trying to load the forums / nubits.com and blockexplorer.nu when I first got up but they wouldn’t load for me and I couldn’t ping them. But I don’t know if it’s just my local connection, which is sometimes spotty, or the sites themselves, or just a connection in-between, which was the issue. Anyhow, resolved itself and back. 
The reason the motion is written as it is is so that I have an authorization to do a small bit of initial work to present. I can’t wait two weeks for every hour of work for a motion to pass. The motion describes the minimum outline of the process and work just to be able to get started and guarantees zero liability to the shareholders so that they feel comfortable being able to see the results. Obviously I’m highly motivated to make sure the results will be acceptable, so I’ll be doing everything I can to ensure that everyone who wants to have any say on this process knows that their voice has been heard and their input given its proper place.
Absolutely anyone and everyone who chooses to be is a manager on this project as far as I’m concerned. And don’t worry, I habitually exclude meetings/conversations with customers from hours billed, which is basically all of requirements gathering, which is exactly why there is always so much background work off-the-clock. But the advantage to the Nu shareholders here is that they can each have as much personal involvement as they like in making sure that the changes are complete and accurate without worrying about adding to the cost.
It’s worth it to me. The reason I initially came up with these policies was precisely because it was important to me that the product be right, and that means the customer can’t be feeling like they need to be in a hurry when giving instructions, because that is a very bad start. I’m always glad to get information as early as possible. I make myself available.
My goal throughout is to do the job right and have the customer satisfied. Which rests on proper requirements gathering and refinement, which along with documentation, is a core point I’m always on about, and which both inherently require a lot of talking to people.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned so far about technology, it’s that the work is really about people. This came as something of a surprise to me, having originally gone into technology with a House type of attitude of “I’ll be so brilliant I can act however I want”, to realize that both, no, sorry, plenty of geniuses available on the market, and that actually many of the problems technically could be solved by a lot of people but that figuring out the “who to ask” and other types of people / process questions were really the game-changers / force multipliers.
And having worked minimum wage fast food jobs immediately prior as sort of a “working vacation”, I’ve been polishing my ability to work with people across a wide range of backgrounds and levels of sobriety (on the last, mostly from the customers and passers-by, definitely dealt with a few very drunk and very stoned and similar). xD Not saying that last bit is particularly relevant here, you all seem like quite sober and studious types, but just that, by comparison to my “working vacation”, working with everyone who has input on this is going to be the “vacation job” by comparison to that.
tl;dr: I anticipate no problems with the review or with making input and review available to all interested parties throughout the project.
Apologies for massive comment, heh. I promise, this is just my “conversational writing” style. My documentation work is far more concise. Gotta break a lot of eggs to make an omelette, n’est-ce pas?
2 Likes
My suggestion was not a matter of ensuring communication. It was a matter of allowing people to see the work you perform as it’s being performed in small chunks. Because it’s easier to follow the changes and the work in small chunks as its happening. But I see that’s what your planning so don’t mind me.
You’re doing fine, put some stuff up and at the very least I’ll read and comment on it. The grant process is synonymous with the review process.
1 Like
Once the motion passes and the project is started, I’ll absolutely have getting updates up as a top priority.
1 Like
I want to hug you and tell you everything’s ok. I would miss you if you left entirely; you got a lot of moxie and i was excited to work with you. Anyway, you have to look out for yourself and we all wish you success and happiness in whatever you choose to do going forward.
3 Likes
What happened?
Why?