[bisq-network/proposals] Role owners should itemize compensation on a per-role basis in monthly compensation requests (#30)

Chris Beams notifications at github.com
Wed Jul 11 08:13:04 UTC 2018

@ripcurlx wrote:

> it wouldn't be possible to do so properly for next month's voting as I haven't tracked efforts in detail for each role this month already

Let's dig into this. It's exactly the kind of discussion I think we need to have. Could you give an example of a role you own where you would need to "track efforts in detail"? And what does "tracking in detail" mean for you? Literal time tracking?

My hope here—and I don't know for sure if it's feasible, that's why we need to have these discussions—is that we can make most if not all roles simple enough in their duties to make it possible to estimate time and effort on a monthly basis, and ideally to request the same, or roughly the same, amount every month.

Let's take @bisq-network/seednode-operators for example. Each operator's hard costs are generally going to be the same from month to month, perhaps with slight variance depending on their hosting platform's billing model. Soft costs (time and effort) will usually be quite minimal, probably entailing one or two version upgrades and redeployments. So most months, each seednode operator will probably request roughly the same, if not _exactly_ the same, amount of BSQ for that role.

The above is an easy example. Let's take something more challenging now, like being one of the @bisq-network/desktop-maintainers. The primary duties of this role include merging pull requests after sufficient review, triaging incoming issues, and performing releases. If, as the roles doc stipulates, we separate out development and review activities from this role, and itemize them as normal (non-role) contributions, do you still feel it would be necessary to "track in detail" your efforts on this role? Would it not be reasonable, at the end of the month, to estimate this figure, relative to previous months?

I'm asking these questions, because I'd like to avoid setting a precedent about time tracking or anything else that causes people to have to go out of their way on a daily basis to account for their activities. Time tracking has always been a nightmare in my experience with it in many organizations, and it introduces a level of bureaucracy and even mistrust that I'd like to avoid institutionalizing in any way within the Bisq DAO.

And "time and effort" is really just a first approximation / heuristic for "value added to the network" anyway. What I care about as a voting stakeholder is not whether you tracked your efforts in detail, but whether the amount of BSQ you're requesting for that effort is commensurate with the work done and the value that work adds to everyone involved. In order to be able to make that assessment, I need to be able to see what you did, and this is why itemization of efforts is important, but so long as I can see the work you did (or read your description of it), then I can judge whether the amount of BSQ is reasonable. I'll be making that judgement based on previous compensation requests for the same work, other contributors' compensation requests who do similar work and play similar roles, and so on.

My whole point here is that I think we can converge over time on the correct amounts to request without doing a lot of "tracking efforts in detail". I think it's enough to do an end-of-the-month GitHub Issues query that allows you to review all the issues and PRs you participated in, to gather them up and to request compensation for them, and for anything that didn't leave an explicit issue or PR "paper trail" (i.e. certain role-related duties), I think it's enough to offer a well-considered estimate of your time and effort on those duties and to request reasonable BSQ compensation for it.

What do you (@ripcurlx) and the other @bisq-network/role-owners think?

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20180711/bf504267/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the bisq-github mailing list