4 ms·

Although it depends on individuals, I imagine most of the crowd here, myself included, doesn't have any hesitations about designing systems ground up from scrat

by lethain 18y ago

Although it depends on individuals, I imagine most of the crowd here, myself included, doesn't have any hesitations about designing systems ground up from scratch. Some times you screw up and have to redesign later, but that's part of the process of learning. That said, it would take exceptional circumstances for me to work on such a project. Programmer time has a high market value, and--personally--I'm still having a hard time not looking at your idea as asking programmers to work on your idea for free. Project management that your discussing is a non-issue until the project grows considerably. I think for many programmers it would feel like you were just taking credit for their work, rather than providing a valued service. People become project leaders by contributing publicly recognized effort and talent to the project, and I just don't believe the efforts you are suggesting would be viewed as valuable.

nickmolnar 18y ago
That brings up another important question. How do you find the ideal person to take a leadership role for development? That is where the credit should go, but it's a tough spot to fill.
- nickmolnar 18y ago
  Another idea I have been thinking about is the necessity of having plans in place, from the beginning, for if, and when, the project begins to have commercial merit. If everyone knows that 90% of any ensuing corporation will go to the top 6 developers on the project, they are much more likely to commit valuable resources.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > If everyone knows that 90% of any ensuing corporation will go to the top 6 developers on the project, they are much more likely to commit valuable resources. You're confusing "my plan will work if other people behave this way" with "other people will behave this way". Moreover, it's an open source project, so you can't say anything about "any ensuing corporation". You can only make committments for corporations that you control; you can't stop other corporations from getting most of the benefits. And, who's to say that 6 is the right number? What if a given project takes 10 people to do reasonably? Why will those last four people contribute?
    - nickmolnar 18y ago
      Fair point. Let's assume that the only goal is to make the project go forward. All compensation and credit should be structured to further this goal. I guess 100% is the best way to structure it. Possibly even with a disclaimer saying the founder would not create any company out of the source code - but could be hired by anyone who does. The founder's role would then, simply, be an evangelist for the project(s). I think the last four people would participate in the hopes of entering the top six, but a more open plan would probably encourage more participation. I think the last four would participate with the goal of entering the top 6, just like the dozens of applicants for the winner-take-all Ansari X-Prize.
      - nickmolnar 18y ago
        Maybe all that is needed is a non-binding proposal that the top 6 developers would, after the product reaches a particular milestone, band together and start a company, dividing shares however they choose. I just think that having any plan for the future would make developers more likely to invest their scarce time.

by lethain 18y ago

nickmolnar 18y ago

That brings up another important question. How do you find the ideal person to take a leadership role for development? That is where the credit should go, but it's a tough spot to fill.

nickmolnar 18y ago
Another idea I have been thinking about is the necessity of having plans in place, from the beginning, for if, and when, the project begins to have commercial merit. If everyone knows that 90% of any ensuing corporation will go to the top 6 developers on the project, they are much more likely to commit valuable resources.
- anamax 18y ago
  > If everyone knows that 90% of any ensuing corporation will go to the top 6 developers on the project, they are much more likely to commit valuable resources. You're confusing "my plan will work if other people behave this way" with "other people will behave this way". Moreover, it's an open source project, so you can't say anything about "any ensuing corporation". You can only make committments for corporations that you control; you can't stop other corporations from getting most of the benefits. And, who's to say that 6 is the right number? What if a given project takes 10 people to do reasonably? Why will those last four people contribute?
  - nickmolnar 18y ago
    Fair point. Let's assume that the only goal is to make the project go forward. All compensation and credit should be structured to further this goal. I guess 100% is the best way to structure it. Possibly even with a disclaimer saying the founder would not create any company out of the source code - but could be hired by anyone who does. The founder's role would then, simply, be an evangelist for the project(s). I think the last four people would participate in the hopes of entering the top six, but a more open plan would probably encourage more participation. I think the last four would participate with the goal of entering the top 6, just like the dozens of applicants for the winner-take-all Ansari X-Prize.
    - nickmolnar 18y ago
      Maybe all that is needed is a non-binding proposal that the top 6 developers would, after the product reaches a particular milestone, band together and start a company, dividing shares however they choose. I just think that having any plan for the future would make developers more likely to invest their scarce time.