Why we reject all Bitshares workers?
A worker was designed to be the employee of Bitshares blockchain and work for the whole ecosystem. This innovative mechanism indeed played great role at the beginning of Bitshares 2.0, when a bunch of talented “workers” gathered as core dev team to make Bitshares 2.0 happen. Besides the core dev team, some other “workers” added much value to Bitshares too, such as @cass ’s UI, @xeroc ’s script and documents.
However, debates also accompanied the worker ever since the first day, and a few top voting proxies even reject all workers without any bias, which means the worker mechanism is not accepted by the most. The consequence is that every worker proposal is hard to get approved.
At the beginning I stand the point that we should encourage people to work for Bitshares and apply for workers. However, now I am more and more inclined to support the point that worker system should be abandoned and I highly suggest that bounty should replace worker. Here are a few reasons.
1\ Bitshares 2.0 is generally a very stable system, which has been running without any hardfork for months. What we need at the current stage is bug fixing or customized new features, instead of touching the bottom codes. Therefore, we don’t really need full time workers to work for Bitshares. Both bug fixing or the demand of customized new features can be done by bounty.
2\ Bitshares 2.0 is too poor to feed a lot of workers, and the dilution due to workers actually stops potential investors to join. The “dilution” of Bitshares is sometimes “notorious” in blockchain community.
***2\Worker system actually discourages volunteering. If you grow with Bitshares community since the old days when there was no worker, you may recall that Bitshares community was actually very active, with a lot of volunteers working for Bitshares for free. But now, some of them hesitate to do it because they feel unfair seeing workers get paid while they don’t. ***
***3\ Workers are not more loyal than others. It is embarrassing that most of the past workers disappeared once their worker contract expired, or they ask for new worker contract to clean the old bugs they made. ***
On the other hand, the long time loyal members of community who are contributing a lot to the system are not workers or were not paid much. I can list a few, such as openLedger, blockpay, beyondbitcoin, transwiser, btsbots, btsabc,hellobts, etc. According to the evaluation criteria of worker, anyone on this list deserves a worker proposal, but they are still happily working for Bitshares without being worker.
Why I support Bounty to replace worker?
I believe we still have a lot of talents in our community, they are good programmers or good marketers, and they are pleased to help bitshares by accepting the bounty. They will be rewarded by bounty and honor.
1\Bounty will let people compete therefore better results can be expected compared with non-competing worker, not to mention the efficiency and quality.
2\ Don’t worry that no one respond to the mission. If it happens, it means this mission is not important enough to increase the bounty.
A normal flow of bounty can be:
Shareholders feedback the demand firstly, then the committee is responsible for summarizing these demands and organizing voting to create bounty, then waiting for people to submit their work, then shareholders decide whether the work is qualified for bounty or not.
The above is just my preliminary thoughts, whereas some details might need to be reconsidered, so welcome any comments.
I disagree!
You and your friends are holding back further development and the growth of BTS by your insane blocking strategy.
Please approve more workers and let the ecosystem grow.
This or sell your shares and let the good investors at the steering wheel.
"change is good"
Why Steemit hadn't choiced the worker project?Because the project is the cause of community divergence.Divergence will hurt everyone.Rough freedom leads to division, we need more refined freedom. Such as America's bipartisan system, not Africa's chaos.
We can organize two Preparatory Committees.Interval of four years ,we vote one excellent committee,authorize him to manage the bounty .
I also thought about it for a while. My idea was kind of similar.
I thought that we could have a "worker" that fills an account controlled by the commettee. No dilution so far, just money moving from reserve pool to this account. Everybody happy!
Then, with this money directly available we create a list of the different features we want to implement and their related bounties. We can spread this list on several blockchain social networks. Using this method we don't have to wait to have the money for each feature we want to implements, we quickly have the money for any (but not all) of them. The list of each bounty and the cost should be somehow voted by the community.
When someone is interested in the bounty, there is no need for an additional vote, it's already voted. As long as the feature is delivered and fully accepted by the community, the dev gets paid.
Right
when China community say no to worker proposals, the key point is not "we are poor, we do not want to pay, we hate dilution", but "we need better planned,organized and estimated development". users hate that the worker proposal reduce to just a way for someone to make money by doing thing with little sense, especially when some developer said that "if I can get money from worker proposal by just typing some codes, why would't I? what sense does the codes make? who cares?"
Bitshares is now in a stable stage that most of the features work well and no one feel big pain at any settings, however do we really need not to do further big development? I am not sure, regarding the planned but unfinished features such as bond market and KYC/identity system, have any plans come out from any developer's brain ? or even is it possible for bm to come back to lead the development of these features?
on the other side, we also need some development which do not touch the core codes but focus on the scalability/advanced user experience, for example roadscape's cryptofresh, xeroc's python library.
I feel we still need worker, however the worker proposal process need to be redesigned, this is a big topic, which may include but not limited to:
2.add a "tip" button to each worker, contributor work not only for money, but also for appreciation, in many scene tha latter play a more important role. these feature will help to discourage the workers that "just for money"
3.update the rule to avoid the case that the proposal is voted on and the work started for long time, then the worker is voted down and the worker get nothing.
How can we agree on this fundamental change if no changes never get enough votes?
I'm not familiar enough how bitshares work, but post sounds really reasonable.
Good idea