swarms

History

Oskar Thorén 8d5673e214 Static site for ideas, dynamically generated index (#185 ) - Feature complete with README.md - Idea registry, commitment registry and classifieds - Core Contributors tracked in contributors.yaml - Updated yaml front matter for in progress ideas a few from other states		2018-04-20 23:40:46 +08:00
..
README.md	Static site for ideas, dynamically generated index (#185 )	2018-04-20 23:40:46 +08:00
models.md	121: grant & burn	2018-04-10 12:56:12 +02:00

README.md

title

status

created

Preamble

Idea: 121-swarm-compensation
Title: Swarm Compensation
Status: In Progress
Created: 2018-04-02
Related: 120-swarm-process

Summary

Ultimately we would like Status to become a public good, owned, developed and ran by it's very own users. In order to achieve that we need to open up our processes for contributions from "the outside" and establish ways for users to propose & incentivise projects they see as important.

Swarms are our current attempt at enabling this. They are ephemeral teams forming to achieve a specified goal and disbanding once achieved or failure becomes apparent. Their defined lifetime and -cycle encourage constant re-evaluation &. evolution.

Compensating contributors for their work is an important component of this and where 120-swarm-process focuses on establishing a baseline of processes that are open to everyone this idea will focus on experimentally devising compensation mechanisms.

Swarm Participants

Lead Contributor: @martinklepsch
Contributor ('payment'): @jason / @carl
Contributor: @oskarth
Evaluation ('compensation criteria'): Voting mechanism among experiment participants (Polly survey)

Product Overview

This swarm will define four experimental compensation mechanisms and recruit upcoming swarms to participate in this experiment.

The compensation mechanisms should be judged according to the following criteria:

Fairness — if we're not fair we will fail to retain contributors. While hopefully obvious employees of Status the company and community contributors should be treated equally.
Ease of use — we want to ship a new kind of platform, not get bogged down in "paperwork"
More attractive than salary — as outlined in 120-swarm-process there are two types of swarms:
- Type-1 is the ideal, defined, ran and compensated by the community
- Type-2 is the currently predominant form. Defined, ran and compensated by employees of Status, the company.
- While coming up with a nice model for Type-1 swarms we also would like to encourage every Status employee to participate in similar ways as community contributors.

Checkpoints

Checkpoint 1 — `2018-04-13`

Define at least two compensation models
Get buy-in from major SNT holder to fund experiments
Talk to #peopleops how we can admin/structure this
Reach out to upcoming swarms and convince them to participate
Broadcast intention behind these experiments into community and encourage submission of ideas. (Medium post?)

Checkpoint 2 — `2018-04-27`

Define two more compensation models
Again, reach out and convince upcoming swarms
- If possible consider a community submitted idea/swarm

Checkpoint 3 — `2018-05-31`

Summarize learnings and archive them in ideas repository.
Write up what these learnings mean for the OpenBounty project specifically and how they should affect the development of the product.

Exit Criteria

Conduct four experiments and evaluate them based on the criteria outlined above. Give recommendation on what kind of compensation mechanism should be enabled by Status OpenBounty.

Metrics Affected

OpenBounty Transaction Volume

While these experimental compensation payouts won't happen through the OpenBounty platform these transactions could still be counted as part of OpenBounty as they will ultimately inform what compensation models will find their way into OpenBounty.

SNT Utility

Once these experiments translate to changes in the OpenBounty product SNT holders will be able to directly support changes they see as important. This will increase SNT utility and distribute ownership of the Status platform.