Ok, going a bit off-topic here, but we need to have this discussion to move forward:
@Sentinelrv, I have been playing with this and throwing it around with Ben in the last days/week. The control over disbursements is not an easy one. The advantage of peer4commit is that it has at least some traceability of how much and to what account the disbursement went.
So I think there are two problems to solve:
- How do we do know the funds get to the right person
- Who determines that someone has done some good work for the community and what criteria would they apply
1. This can be solved by sending a PM to the project maintainer after someone has posted in the forum that they completed a task. They need to refer to that post. With that they can get a unique code which allows them to be recognised by the project maintainer on Github. On Github the person who completed the task post their unique code with their account and proves that they completed a task as defined and chartered on Github.
2. By providing clearly chartered and defined tasks, In the case of the video we can define the requirements. Only when all requirements are met a reward applies, or if you want to soften if only requirements such and such applies, that amount of reward is applicable. I agree this would require some good business analyst level thinking for each tasks. I think at the start we should stay away from vague tasks which no-one can really define. So "some good work" is not good enough. Tasks should only be added if community can come up with clear requirements in advance. The project maintainer should refuse tasks which don't have that. They would get themselves in trouble pretty quickly.
For those soft target tasks as rewarding people who did a good job (in hindsight) we should run a separate fund with another charter. People can be nominated with a number of recommendations by the community and then community voting might determine the level of reward. We could run a poll(s) on that. The project maintainer will release the funds as per outcome of the poll.
Issue resolution proposal:
- If the project maintainer is not satisfied of in doubt about the value of the reward they can raise that an issue on Github, consult the community on it and invite them to vote either in the forum or on Github itself.
- If the person receiving the reward is not satisfied they can also raise an issue according to same process.
In both case voting will provide the final decision. The issues resolution process can also be used if charter leaves too much doubt to make good decisions in specific cases.
Happy to showcase how this would work in the next few days, but as said before the process is a bit clumsy at the moment. We have made Sigmike (maintainer peer4commit) aware of the plan and he might be able to smoothen out some of the hoops and loops and makes it more user friendly over time.
So with clear charters and issue resolution process in place the project maintainer(s) are basically just bookkeepers and rewarding according a set process on behalf of the donators. Peer4commit and blockchain are transparent on the amount of reward and to it went so some auditing by community/donators is possible. Still need two or more people to run it like that properly if heaps of tasks start to show up. Happy to raise my hand to start with and help defining tasks under a certain charter, but as said before we need more support from one preferably two people who are on the same page and are prepared to run with some tasks and rewarding people as per process and charter.
Please shoot at it where you think it might not work for some reason. The more we think of it in advance the smoother the process will be later.
Edit: readability improvements....