[bisq-network/compensation] For July 2018 (#96)
notifications at github.com
Mon Jul 30 08:11:09 UTC 2018
Thank you for your comments everyone.
I've now read through https://github.com/bisq-network/compensation/issues/95. It looks like since @HarryMacfinned's compensation request (https://github.com/bisq-network/compensation/issues/91) was the only one including translation compensation in the past few months, several people had their expectations skewed.
Here are my thoughts (apologies in advance, a bit long-winded):
- I agree with @ManfredKarrer that it'd be good from here on out to set a standard for compensation requests for translation work. In other words, unskew the expectations of those considering translation work in the future. I've laid out below what I believe the optimal framework ought to be.
- I further agree with @ManfredKarrer's consideration that what is meant by shipped for translation is a bit blurry. Though I respectfully disagree with him as well as @cbeams that requests must be made only for completed languages. By limiting contribution requests to only completed languages you're severely limiting the incentives for individuals to work on languages which are presently at a low level of completion, and that's unfortunate. Transifex already provides a very reliable metric to evaluate productivity (string count / word count), and in principle, partial translations can be released and provide value [they are not the same as, say, partial code]. I think a partial translation is more analogous to an 0.x release update, and certainly no one would say that compensation for development work can't be requested until the 1.0 release.
Furthermore, for a p2p decentralized exchange like Bisq, translation can provide immense value expanding the userbase toward those who need it most. Why would we seek to limit the incentives to progress toward that? Just like placing a 100,000 BSQ minimum on compensation requests would limit the amount of contributors, or when the government requires a heavy regulatory burden of small businesses it limits entrepreneurship--so will this limit the actual translation being done. And though I understand that the reality is Bisq won't release a partial translation--it's not as though the people here don't understand that partial translation work can easily and often is built on--especially if people are incentivized to do so throughout and not just toward the end.
- However, it is certainly the case that some market rate should be set for translation. Here too, I agree with @ManfredKarrer that previous paid contributions should not be the determiner here. If a mistake was made in the past, there is certainly no use doubling down on it.
Here is my suggestion:
For translation work we should differentiate between:
1. Paid outsourced translation
2. Non-paid personal contribution
Paid outsourced translation should be compensated at the rate paid + a reasonable management fee.
Non-paid personal translation contributions should be paid at opportunity cost within reason (considerations such as regional costs, opportunity costs, etc.). In my own case, I used an hourly-rate justification.
The reason for the differentiation between the two is, very simply, that a single standard essentially guarantee that the only translation work that'd get done is paid and outsourced (and most effectively in lower-income regions)? Not that that's entirely unreasonable, but it's hard to believe anyone other than non-professionals in lower-income regions would be willing to bid as low as $0.05-$0.07/word, let alone $0.025.
To illustrate, @HarryMacfinned requested 300 BSQ for 143 words last month--which is about 2.1 BSQ/word. At that rate, my work (828 words) would be equivalent to 1,737 BSQ. But that's work he did over the course of a full month, with a lot of other contribution in addition--whereas I'd only put in 3 hours each weekend (for 2 weekends), contributed in no other way, and my opportunity cost is just simply not that high (rather, it's about $55/hour). Which is why I think it was perfectly reasonable for me to request 300 BSQ for my translation work, and presumably reasonable for @HarryMacfinned to request 300 BSQ for their translation work, and presumably reasonable for @initCCG to request 1,005 BSQ (125 + 880) for their management work and payment for outsourced translation. It'd actually make sense, in my mind, for @initCCG to request significantly more compensation than 125 BSQ for their management work considering the incredible amount of value they delivered to the project with their oversight.
Btw, @HarryMacfinned I really think you ought to cut yourself some slack here. I'm entirely new here to, and I hope I'm not overstepping my welcome by saying this, but up until May there was hardly any translation work done on transifex in 2018 (judging by activity graph, maybe I'm wrong). In fact, it looks like @initCCG's work in July basically x11 the average monthly contribution. Considering that it was very unclear at the time whether or not Bisq would receive serious translation contribution--it made perfect sense to compensate you well for it.
Moreover, it seems apparent from #95 That @initCCG did all that would with some assumption that they'd be compensated at a similar rate. I certainly did. And to their credit--they corrected that as soon as it was pointed out. So arguably, if it were not for you receiving those 300 BSQ, Bisq wouldn't have a fully translated and reviewed release-ready Russian, Vietnamese, Thai and Persian translations.
In any case, frankly speaking, I don't know what the right answer is here. But these are my thoughts. Mostly importantly, I think a definitive determination should be made so as to cement the expectations of those considering translation work in the future.
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...
More information about the bisq-github